Dear All,

Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 28 February 2022 at 20:00 UTC.  These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg.

Kind regards,

Marika and Julie

SOI Task Force Meeting

Monday, 28 February 2022 at 20:00 UTC

Action Items:

By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103865008760080873867&rtpof=true&sd=true.

Notes:

1. Leadership of the TF:

• James Bladel was nominated and the nomination was seconded.
• Wait to see if this is acceptable or if there are other volunteers.

2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103865008760080873867&rtpof=true&sd=true:

• Not much input prior to this meeting.
• Cover the input provided and discuss.
• The point of the document is to get some initial input.

Structure of the Google doc:

• Questions 1-3 for Task Force input
• How to obtain community input - question for TF input
• Background info: Staff observations (from assignment form)
• Background info: ANNEX A - Chapter 6.0: Statements of Interest

Questions:

1. Is the original objective of the SOI, as stated in the BGC WG Report*, still valid? If not, why not and what should the current objective be?

2. Based on the response to question 1), is the requested information** to be provided as part of the SOI still fit for purpose? If not, why not, and what would need to be changed to make it fit for purpose?

3. Are there any further measures that should be considered from an enforcement / escalation perspective, in addition or instead of those already included in the requirements?

Question 1:

Input from the Business Constituency:

• Currently, the SOI provides minimal information about the interests of a participant.  Knowing where the person sits in the ICANN eco system is helpful but there are many competing interests and until you have worked with a person on a group you cannot be sure where their interests lie. 
• Adding a requirement for a high level description of material issues they, their employers or clients are interested in would be illustrative.

Discussion:

• One of the limitations that others have identified is the confidentiality aspect, and maybe there is a need for a mechanism for people to be more specific.
• One of the concerns is that so many folks can claim to participate in so many different aspects of the GNSO it is not always clear for whom they are advocating.
• SOI is still valid – may be better than nothing.  But needs to be a way for people to be able to indicate whom they are representing when that changes with the context.
• We could make disclosure requirements that could apply – there are parallels where those disclosures could be required (such as lobbying Congress and registration requirements).
• How can we get disclosure requirements for lawyers who are representing various clients?  How to make SOIs useful to the GNSO in general?  Agree that lobbying registration requirements might be good to look at.
• Wonder if the SOIs are even necessary and whether there is another way to approach the issue?  Wonder how the information is being used.
• Don’t think the SOI has dissuaded someone from joining a group.  But could be an issue if the SOI is made more cumbersome.

Question 2:

Input from the Business Constituency:

• Point 5 - I would change this question to plural to ensure that the answer provided pertains to all relationships the individual may have.  It may be implied but it would make the question more clear.    Could we require a separate SOI for each group/team a person works on?  As a consultant I work on teams for differing reasons.
• Some individuals/companies are members of several groups, constituencies or advisory committees.  Is this disclosed in the SOI? 

Discussion:

• Group may need to think about how specific the language should be to the GNSO.  Some issues differentiating affiliations versus membership and how to make sure that those filling out from the ICANN world know how to complete the form.
• Agreeing about the need for an SOI for each group/team a person works on.  Need to think about how this would work in practice.

Question 3:

Input from the Business Constituency:

• What enforcement is currently performed?  If someone is not truthful on the SOI how is that determined?  What actions can be taken?  
• Who reviews and ensures compliance?

Discussion:

• This is an important problem.
• Staff recollection is that reminders for missing information/updates have been given.
• Should be mechanisms in community guidelines or Ombudsman to compel someone or remove them from groups if their SOI is inaccurate.
• There are provisions for inaccurate SOIs.  See below.  But don’t know if this has ever been used.
• Staff is looking into a future platform based on the output from the recommendations coming out of the TF.
• Given the distributed nature of the wiki, tracking down incomplete SOIs is resource intensive. For new enrollments the GNSO Secretariat will do a cursory review but have no information to validate or access to know who their clients are.  They do check for completeness in which case they will ask for it to be updated.  As for group representation, there is a wide grey area.  We can have some feel for who is or isn’t a member, but don’t have direct access to the membership of stakeholders or constituencies to make a confirmation.
• Seems backwards:  everyone starts as an “observer’ and is promoted to “participant” when their SOI is complete.
• But the enrollment form on new groups is set with an option to participate or observe, with makes the onboarding process smoother.  But ICANN may consider a different enrollment platform, which would require you to complete your SOI before you could complete enrollment.
• More complicated as the working group model has moved to more formal representation.

ACTION ITEM: By Thursday, 10 March: TF members are encouraged to provide input on questions 1-3 and on how to obtain community input in the Google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103865008760080873867&rtpof=true&sd=true.

3. Next meeting: Monday, 14 March at 1300 UTC.

-----

Language from the GNSO Operating Procedures concerning compliance:

6.4.2 Accuracy

Concerns raised by ICANN Staff or a member of the ICANN community about the accuracy of a Relevant Party’s Statement of Interest, including whether an interest that may affect the Relevant Party’s judgment with respect to a pending matter has been disclosed, shall be brought to the attention of the applicable Chair and handled pursuant to Paragraph 5.4.3.

6.4.3 Appeal Process

If concerns about the completeness and/or accuracy of a Statement of Interest persist after reasonable attempts are made to resolve them with the Relevant Party, the matter shall be brought to the attention of the applicable Chair and handled according to decision-making methodology and appeal process as prescribed in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines (ANNEX 1, Sections 3.6 and 3.7). At each step of the appeal process, every effort should be made to resolve the completeness and/or accuracy concerns by working cooperatively with the Relevant Party.