Dear All, For tomorrow’s meeting (Wednesday 1 March), we would like to suggest that we first consider the suggestion put forward by Manju (see hereunder). If there is not sufficient support for this approach, we’ll continue with the questions that were put forward on the list after the last call which would result in the following proposed agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Consider possible modification of exemption language whereby represented individual or entity information is shared only with WG leadership if exemption is invoked If no support for 2: 1. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC) 2. Possible SOI Pilot 3. Possible question to ICANN legal 1. Confirm next steps Best regards, Julie and Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Friday, 24 February 2023 at 10:43 To: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> Cc: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] [Ext] Re: Reminder - Please respond - TF follow up questions Thanks, Manju, for your feedback and the suggestion made. All, please consider whether this could be a potential path forward. If I understand correctly, Manju is suggesting that if the exemption is invoked, instead of sharing the name of the client or entity on whose behalf someone is participating publicly as part of the SOI, the information would be collected separately and provided to the leadership of the WG to ensure fair and equitable representation of interests. This could potentially look like something like this: (If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, you must provide specific details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and must provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name as well as declare whether, to the best of your knowledge, that entity is actively participating or being represented in other GNSO SG/Cs/SO/ACs, for example “I represent a gTLD Registry client who is also actively participating in the RySG”, “I am representing a governmental entity, who is also actively participating in the GAC” or “I represent a largem brand holder in the entertainment sector who, to the best of my knowledge, is not actively participating or being represented in other ICANN groups”. If you have invoked this exemption you will be required to separately provide the name of the represented individual or entity to the GNSO Secretariat who will only disclose this information to the leadership of the activity for which you have completed this SOI. In line with the WG guidelines, WG leadership is responsible for assessing whether the activity has sufficiently broad representation as well as informing the Chartering organization should there be over-representation to the point of capture). Of course, this is just a first attempt to capture what such an approach could look like. Please consider this approach as well as the questions outlined further below and provide your feedback on the mailing list. Best regards, Marika From: 陳曼茹 Manju Chen <manju@nii.org.tw> Date: Friday, 24 February 2023 at 04:05 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Cc: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: [Ext] Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Reminder - Please respond - TF follow up questions Hi all, As suggested in the last call, I took my CCOICI liaison hat off for a bit and referred this question back to NCSG. The position of NCSG is clear: NCSG believes in transparency and is strongly against the exemption. One of the NCSG members who used to be on this TF stressed that failure to disclose conflict of interest issues while participating in policy development is one of the MS model’s biggest weaknesses. It was also suggested that some form of escrowed disclosure of clients (eg only the Chair of the Chartering WG would know the client names) could be implemented to ensure fair and equitable representation of interests on the working group. Best, Manju On Thu, Feb 23, 2023 at 5:56 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> wrote: Please provide your feedback on the questions below as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Julie and Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org<mailto:marika.konings@icann.org>> Date: Thursday, 16 February 2023 at 09:31 To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org<mailto:gnso-soi-tf@icann.org>> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Please respond - TF follow up questions Hi All, Following up on yesterday’s conversation, here are some further details on the different suggestions with specific questions for the TF to provide your feedback on: 1. Position on exemption language: We’ve heard the views of the IPC, RySG and RrSG representatives in relation to the exemption language (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit?pl... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXj...>). Question for the ISPCP, BC, NCSG/NCUC reps: Please share your groups view with the mailing list. Would you be in favor of keeping the exemption language as proposed in the google doc, or removing it (the part that starts with ‘If professional ethical obligations prevent you….’)? 1. Possible SOI pilot: During today’s SOI Task Force meeting, the staff support team suggested that before finalizing the report and recommendations, the Task Force could consider conducting a pilot in which it would ask the participants of one or two of the current PDPs (IDNs and Transfers) to complete the SOI as proposed by the SOI Task Force, including the latest exemption language. This may provide the Task Force with further insights into how the SOI would be filled out in practice and whether the exemption would be invoked by many of the participants. Although it may not address all the concerns expressed, the practical experience may provide further insights that could help move the deliberations of the TF forward. If there is support for this approach, we would like to suggest the following steps: 1. Request Manju in her capacity as CCOICI chair and liaison to the TF to communicate to the Council the remaining issue that the TF is aiming to resolve and the proposal to pilot the new SOI with the two ongoing PDPs to gather further information and insights that may help inform the TF’s deliberations. 2. If there is no objection from the Council for following this approach, staff support team to work with the Council liaisons to these PDPs to explain the pilot and request participation. As part of the pilot, respondents would also be asked to share their feedback on the new SOI as proposed. 3. TF to review the SOI entries and consider if/how the responses and feedback provided impact the TF’s view. 4. TF to finalize report for submission to CCOICI/GNSO Council. Question for the TF: Do you agree that conducting a pilot may be helpful in gathering further information that could help resolve the current stalemate on the exemption language? If not, do you have other suggestions for how to break the stalemate, or should the TF finalize its report and outline the different positions on this particular issue so that the CCOICI/Council can consider if/how to resolve it? 1. Possible question to ICANN Legal It was suggested during the meeting that input from ICANN legal may help further inform the discussion. The following question was put forward as a suggestion: “"Is there a case where under international or local law where a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?" However, it was pointed out that this question may be overly broad if it would be expected to cover local laws in all countries across the world. Similarly, the IPC reps have expressed previously that one concern with this approach (informed consent) is that if consent is not be provided, it would effectively exclude someone from participating. Question to the TF: What input could ICANN legal provide that you expect would help inform the TF’s discussion on the exemption language? Please provide your feedback on these questions as soon as possible, but no later than Friday 24 February so we can plan accordingly for the next meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC. Thanks, Julie and Marika _______________________________________________ GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list GNSO-SOI-TF@icann.org<mailto:GNSO-SOI-TF@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.