Reminder – please provide your input ahead of Monday’s meeting. The proposed agenda for the meeting is as follows: Proposed Agenda – GNSO SOI Task Force – Monday 23 May at 20.00 UTC 1. Welcome 2. Continue review of draft recommendations (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...>) a. Review comments / input b. Confirm next steps 3. Wrap up & confirmation of next meeting (Monday 6 June at 13.00 UTC) Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 11 May 2022 at 16:56 To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] For your review - updated draft SOI recommendations Dear All, Following Monday’s meeting, the staff support team has gone ahead and made a number of updates to the draft recommendations in line with the discussion. You can review these updates in redline here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...>. Please review these proposed recommendations in advance of the next meeting as well as the outstanding questions (see remaining comments in the document). Please add any comments and/or suggestions you may have in the form of comments so that the group can consider these during its next meeting. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, 9 May 2022 at 17:17 To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 09 May 2022 13:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 09 May 2022 at 13:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie SOI Task Force Meeting #7 Monday, 09 May 2022 at 13:00 UTC Action Items: Outreach Survey (see attached document) and Review of draft recommendations (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...>) 1. Outreach survey and draft recommendations -- TF members to review the comments/suggestions from the outreach survey as captured in the draft recommendations document and provide further comments/suggestions either in response to the outreach input or to any of the draft recommendations. 1. Question 2d-e -- Staff to propose edits – in particular to make it clear that people are not expected to identify only one group, but all the groups in which they participate, including SOs/ACs, but to indicate which is the primary group. Consider how to capture this in a template for form, for example “if you identified multiple groups please identify which is the one on whose behalf you will represent on the group.” 1. Question 2h -- Staff to provide Bylaws language and background on the context for the development of this question. 1. Question 4 -- Staff to suggest some language for a requirement / practice that at the start of an effort everyone is expected to walk through their activity specific SOI. 1. Question 5: 1. Staff to suggest language and TF members to consider further. 2. Staff to explore whether there is a way to see if this has been used. 1. Question 5bi-ii -- Staff to update to say “you, your employer or your client(s)”. Notes: 1. Welcome 2. Outreach survey (see attached document) a. High level overview * One of the first assignments was to reach out to other groups with a survey to ascertain how they are using the SOIs. * This was posted to the Digest as well as disseminated via the TF representatives’ groups. * We had 23 people responding to the survey. * This is just initial outreach. Any recommendations for changes to the SOI in the GNSO Operating Procedures will go out for public comment. * A lot of the comments seem to align with the comments from the SOI TF and from staff for potential updates. * Some good suggestions in line with what is already being discussed. * Some specific suggestions on questions being asked – could be more tailored, relevant, and easily understood. * Staff integrated the comments into the draft recommendations document. b. TF comments / considerations * Feel free to send them via email to the TF list or put them in the draft recommendations document. c. Confirm next steps * TF members should review comments from outreach survey in the draft recommendations document and provide their further comments and suggestions. See the relevant action item below. ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the comments/suggestions from the outreach survey as captured in the draft recommendations document and provide further comments/suggestions either in response to the outreach input or to any of the draft recommendations. 3. Continue review of draft recommendations (see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...>) a. Review comments / input Overview: * Hoped that we would have received input from the TF members; not sure if that means that people are comfortable with the draft. * Do you need more time to review and with your groups? Do you need more time? What would be a reasonable time frame? * Karen Day – haven’t had time to review with my group with the accelerated time frame for ICANN74 preparation. * Suggestion for today’s call is to focus on specific items and how to address the suggestions that were made. 2. The General Statement of Interest consists of the following (existing questions): d. Affiliation (if not covered by b or c) e. Please identify your current employer(s); * From Outreach Survey: "Listing merely one "affiliation" is not just disingenuous, it is false and potentially misleading. Many participants have ties to multiple groups, even if they only officially participate in one of them—each of these is important. Some people do not consider themselves "users", this is also important information. When completing SOIs, people should be encouraged to be expansive in their definitions of interest: not just who pays them, which has some import, but with whom their sympathies lie." * From Outreach Survey: "The objective of the SOI is being missed in many cases as just listing the organisation one is affiliated with does not usually provide the full picture. For example if a participant states he or she is representing the "Online fellowship of the greater good", that is not usually sufficient to understand whose interest that participant truly represents. The SOI should therefore be expanded by a register for the organisations represented as well, outlining their source of funding and memberships in and affiliations with other relevant organisations. The SOI should also include statements of who is paying for the time of the representative spent doing the work, e.g. who is paying the billable hours." * Is it important to ask for this information and how? Perhaps “please identify all the groups in which you participate and in particular those SGs/Cs in which you are a voting member.” * Seems to be a question where we all agree that there needs to be more input. We should also check back with our groups. * Think we need to broaden the language to ask them to list all stakeholder groups, affiliation, etc. Also guidance/use cases and definitions would be helpful. * What additional information should we request and how to integrate it into the form? * Conscious that we need to find a balance, but like the idea of providing a link to the organization/affiliation. 2e: Please identify your current employer(s); * From Outreach Survey: "I would include current and former employers as well as any affiliation the completer believes would be important if they were reading someone else's SOI." * Add something about previous employer? Not sure how that would be relevant for an SOI. * Could continue to thing about this one and whether there is a situation in which previous employer would be relevant. * There is already a section that asks about additional information that might be relevant. ACTION ITEM: Question 2d-e -- Staff to propose edits – in particular to make it clear that people are not expected to identify only one group, but all the groups in which they participate, including SOs/ACs, but to indicate which is the primary group. Consider how to capture this in a template for form, for example “if you identified multiple groups please identify which is the one on whose behalf you will represent on the group.” 2h: Please identify your declared country of primary residence (e.g., country to which you pay taxes): * From Outreach Survey: "The language in #2 "Please identify your declared country of primary residence (which may be the country to which you pay taxes)."differs from that in the ICANN Bylaws. It should be modified to make it consistent." * Maybe come back to this. * The primary use of this field is very helpful to the Secretariat support team when we start a new group when monitoring for diversity by location and use the field to set up the cadence of calls. ACTION ITEM: Question 2h -- Staff to provide Bylaws language and background on the context for the development of this question. 2k. Additional information (optional) * From Outreach Survey: "SOI should permit "EDIT" mode and provide space for "Any Other Pertinent Declarations or Disclosures"" * Could be more specific and also provide use cases. Template may already have this – but could provide more context. 4. The Activity Specific Statement of Interest is to be completed for each GNSO activity a participant signs up for. * From staff: Should there also be a requirement / practice that at the start of an effort everyone is expected to walk through their activity specific SOI? * Having these introductions at the beginning of a call provides transparency and may reduce the need for enforcement if there are questions about an SOI at a later time. * Seems to be support for that approach. ACTION ITEM: Question 4 -- Staff to suggest some language for a requirement / practice that at the start of an effort everyone is expected to walk through their activity specific SOI. 5. The Activity Specific Statement of Interest consists of the following (existing questions): a. Do you believe you are participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? If the answer is “Yes,” please provide the name of the represented individual or entity. (If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please enter "Private"): * Question: it was originally suggested that the Activity Specific Statement of Interest could also include a question that would ask about what the desired outcome and/or describing the possible impacts of such outcome. Is that something to be added? * Seems to be supported by the Consensus Playbook recommendations. Could help focus the conversations. * Is this something that you think should be included? * Come back to this one for further discussion. * From Outreach Survey: "The language in 5 "If professional ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing this information, please so state." is problematic as it creates a "loophole" for some to hide behind such relationship. I would urge the SOI Task Force to see if there is a way to turn this around to make sure non-disclosure is only allowed under exceptional circumstances." * Any thoughts on this one? Let us know if you would like to take this back to our legal colleagues. * This has come up a couple of times in previous meetings. If there are ethical obligations preventing the disclosure, maybe we could ask a different question to get some idea of why someone is at a meeting? * Maybe could ask which professional ethical obligations are preventing you. Maybe use cases can be more specific. Ask if there are professional or ethical obligations that would be prevent this from being disclosed. * Group should think further about this suggestion, particularly concerning alternate questions. * Is there a way we can see how often people use this exception? ACTION ITEMS – Question 5: 1. Staff to suggest language and TF members to consider further. 2. Staff to explore whether there is a way to see if this has been used. b. Please identify any other relevant arrangements, interests, or benefits as requested in the following two questions: i. Do you have any type of material interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? If the answer is “yes,” please describe the material interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes: ii. Are there any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your participation as a work team member? If the answer is “yes,” please describe the arrangements/agreements and the name of the group, constituency, or person(s): * Question: Should this be updated to say “you, your employer or your client(s)”? ACTION ITEM: Question 5bi-ii -- Staff to update to say “you, your employer or your client(s)”. 8. A number of use cases have been developed [to be completed] by the TF that will serve as example / instructions for those completing the templates to provide the appropriate level of detail / information. * From Outreach Survey: "Guidance to the level of detail required would also assist as currently there is a range in the level of detail given across SOIs which all, apparently, are acceptable" 9. The GNSO SOI Task Force recommends that prior to these recommendations being adopted, a test run is conducted from which feedback is gathered by the SOI TF to determine whether updates need to be considered. * Question: could such a test run also be carried out with a PDP that is already underway – with a request for volunteers to complete the new SOI from the perspective of the effort they are participating in and sharing their feedback on whether the proposed updates are deemed helpful? * Sounds like an excellent suggestion. Enforcement / Escalation Outreach Survey Input for consideration: * Several suggestions from the survey. * TF members to add their comments/suggestions. b. Confirm next steps * Identify which areas require further discussion. * Staff to update based on today’s meeting. * TF members are requested to review again and provide comments/suggestions in advance of the next meeting. (See action item above.) 4. Wrap up & confirmation of next meeting (Monday 23 May at 20.00 UTC)