Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: 1. SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups. 2. GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC. 3. SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal. Notes: 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. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit If no support for 2: 3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC) * RySG will have feedback soon – it is an interesting compromise. Also awaiting feedback from the registrars. * RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go from here. Still could be several concerns. * If this TF can’t come to consensus on language, it will go back to the CCOICI and then to the Council. The Council would vote on changes to the Operating Procedures as a simply majority vote. Also is sent to the Board. * IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can’t disclose then you can’t disclose to the leadership. * If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it. Can also discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting. It would be helpful for each group to state their views for the CCOICI to consider. Seems that this is the only point of disagreement in the revisions to the SOI. * NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text. * RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with the SOI. 4. Possible SOI Pilot * Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if groups won’t change their views. 5. Possible question to ICANN legal * Important to frame the question and get agreement that this would be helpful. 6. Confirm next steps * Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups to be included in the report to the CCOICI to consider. * Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the exemption language. * Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report. * No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI makes changes. Not sure what it would achieve at this point as this already an issue that was called out in public comment. * RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again before going to Council as people were not paying attention. * Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on specific question(s) that would yield responses that could move this forward. Also there is the opportunity to socialize among your groups at ICANN76 – could set up an informal SOI TF meeting in a sign-up room if available (no remote access). Is there interest in this? Possibly but it would need to be later in the week. Secretariat to do a Doodle poll. ACTION ITEMS: 1. SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups. 2. GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC. 3. SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.
Hi, In terms of my representation of the BC’s position, I consulted with the BC Chair and I believe we’re in agreement that the BC is strongly opposed to this proposal. Reasoning: - Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a transparency issue. That calls for some skepticism. - The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client relationships. There are myriad reasons – not the least of which would be the fact that disclosure of those being represented could invite even more gaming into the ICANN system. For example, an attorney representing a new gTLD applicant could be compelled to disclose his/her relationship with that applicant, inviting a competing application. That’s just one example. - Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that, should a participant be in this position, he/she could just disclose the identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or the working group chair. That, frankly, is preposterous – ICANN is a sieve of information leakage in the first place, and – further – such disclosure puts one or two individuals into a decision-making position on that person’s participation. ICANN is not in the business of appointing people who can arbitrate others’ participation. - Interesting that the NCSG – which is a vociferous proponent of privacy – is beating the drum for revealing representation. They can’t have it both ways – protect identities when they want and don’t when they find it convenient. On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 8:47 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg.
Kind regards,
Marika and Julie
*GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC*
*ACTION ITEMS: *
1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.* 2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC.* 3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*
*Notes: *
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. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit
If no support for 2:
3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC)
- RySG will have feedback soon – it is an interesting compromise. Also awaiting feedback from the registrars. - RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go from here. Still could be several concerns. - If this TF can’t come to consensus on language, it will go back to the CCOICI and then to the Council. The Council would vote on changes to the Operating Procedures as a simply majority vote. Also is sent to the Board. - IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can’t disclose then you can’t disclose to the leadership. - If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it. Can also discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting. It would be helpful for each group to state their views for the CCOICI to consider. Seems that this is the only point of disagreement in the revisions to the SOI. - NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text. - RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with the SOI.
4. Possible SOI Pilot
- Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if groups won’t change their views.
5. Possible question to ICANN legal
- Important to frame the question and get agreement that this would be helpful.
6. Confirm next steps
- Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups to be included in the report to the CCOICI to consider. - Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the exemption language. - Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report. - No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI makes changes. Not sure what it would achieve at this point as this already an issue that was called out in public comment. - RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again before going to Council as people were not paying attention. - Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on specific question(s) that would yield responses that could move this forward. Also there is the opportunity to socialize among your groups at ICANN76 – could set up an informal SOI TF meeting in a sign-up room if available (no remote access). Is there interest in this? Possibly but it would need to be later in the week. Secretariat to do a Doodle poll.
*ACTION ITEMS: *
1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.* 2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC.* 3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*
_______________________________________________ GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list 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.
-- *Imran Hossen* Managing Director | CEO *EyHost Ltd. * | *EySoft IT Solution* *Skype:* imran891 *Phone: *+8801619474927 www.eysoftbd.com | www.eyhost.biz
Thanks, Imran. Can you confirm that this is the statement that the BC would like to include in the report on this topic? All, we have a call scheduled for next week, but we are going to give everyone a bit more time to consult and prepare statements on the exemption language for inclusion in the report. In the meantime, we will also consult with Manju as the CCOICI liaison to this effort to see if there are further efforts we can undertake to bring the group closer together on this issue, or whether it is time to escalate it to the CCOICI for resolution. Of course, if there are any new proposals or changes in views on this topic, feel free to share these with the list. The meeting will be moved to Wednesday 12 April so please submit your group’s statements by Friday 7 April at the latest. Best regards, Julie & Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Imran Hossen <imran@eysoftbd.com> Date: Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 14:29 To: Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC Hi, In terms of my representation of the BC’s position, I consulted with the BC Chair and I believe we’re in agreement that the BC is strongly opposed to this proposal. Reasoning: * Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a transparency issue. That calls for some skepticism. * The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client relationships. There are myriad reasons – not the least of which would be the fact that disclosure of those being represented could invite even more gaming into the ICANN system. For example, an attorney representing a new gTLD applicant could be compelled to disclose his/her relationship with that applicant, inviting a competing application. That’s just one example. * Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that, should a participant be in this position, he/she could just disclose the identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or the working group chair. That, frankly, is preposterous – ICANN is a sieve of information leakage in the first place, and – further – such disclosure puts one or two individuals into a decision-making position on that person’s participation. ICANN is not in the business of appointing people who can arbitrate others’ participation. * Interesting that the NCSG – which is a vociferous proponent of privacy – is beating the drum for revealing representation. They can’t have it both ways – protect identities when they want and don’t when they find it convenient. On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 8:47 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org<mailto:julie.hedlund@icann.org>> wrote: Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg. Kind regards, Marika and Julie GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC ACTION ITEMS: 1. SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups. 2. GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC. 3. SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal. Notes: 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. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXj...> If no support for 2: 3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC) * RySG will have feedback soon – it is an interesting compromise. Also awaiting feedback from the registrars. * RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go from here. Still could be several concerns. * If this TF can’t come to consensus on language, it will go back to the CCOICI and then to the Council. The Council would vote on changes to the Operating Procedures as a simply majority vote. Also is sent to the Board. * IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can’t disclose then you can’t disclose to the leadership. * If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it. Can also discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting. It would be helpful for each group to state their views for the CCOICI to consider. Seems that this is the only point of disagreement in the revisions to the SOI. * NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text. * RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with the SOI. 4. Possible SOI Pilot * Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if groups won’t change their views. 5. Possible question to ICANN legal * Important to frame the question and get agreement that this would be helpful. 6. Confirm next steps * Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups to be included in the report to the CCOICI to consider. * Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the exemption language. * Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report. * No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI makes changes. Not sure what it would achieve at this point as this already an issue that was called out in public comment. * RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again before going to Council as people were not paying attention. * Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on specific question(s) that would yield responses that could move this forward. Also there is the opportunity to socialize among your groups at ICANN76 – could set up an informal SOI TF meeting in a sign-up room if available (no remote access). Is there interest in this? Possibly but it would need to be later in the week. Secretariat to do a Doodle poll. ACTION ITEMS: 1. SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups. 2. GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC. 3. SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal. _______________________________________________ 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. -- Imran Hossen Managing Director | CEO EyHost Ltd. | EySoft IT Solution Skype: imran891 Phone: +8801619474927 www.eysoftbd.com [eysoftbd.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eysoftbd.com__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713...> | www.eyhost.biz [eyhost.biz]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eyhost.biz__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AF...>
Dear Marika, Yes, it is confirmed, you can include it in the report. On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 8:27 PM Marika Konings <marika.konings@icann.org> wrote:
Thanks, Imran. Can you confirm that this is the statement that the BC would like to include in the report on this topic?
All, we have a call scheduled for next week, but we are going to give everyone a bit more time to consult and prepare statements on the exemption language for inclusion in the report. In the meantime, we will also consult with Manju as the CCOICI liaison to this effort to see if there are further efforts we can undertake to bring the group closer together on this issue, or whether it is time to escalate it to the CCOICI for resolution. Of course, if there are any new proposals or changes in views on this topic, feel free to share these with the list.
The meeting will be moved to Wednesday 12 April so please submit your group’s statements *by Friday 7 April at the latest*.
Best regards,
Julie & Marika
*From: *GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Imran Hossen <imran@eysoftbd.com> *Date: *Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 14:29 *To: *Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org>, "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" < gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC
Hi,
In terms of my representation of the BC’s position, I consulted with the BC Chair and I believe we’re in agreement that the BC is strongly opposed to this proposal. Reasoning:
- Contracted parties and their allies are positioning this as a transparency issue. That calls for some skepticism. - The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client relationships. There are myriad reasons – not the least of which would be the fact that disclosure of those being represented could invite even more gaming into the ICANN system. For example, an attorney representing a new gTLD applicant could be compelled to disclose his/her relationship with that applicant, inviting a competing application. That’s just one example. - Proponents of the rule change have suggested as a compromise that, should a participant be in this position, he/she could just disclose the identity of the client relationship to ICANN Org or the working group chair. That, frankly, is preposterous – ICANN is a sieve of information leakage in the first place, and – further – such disclosure puts one or two individuals into a decision-making position on that person’s participation. ICANN is not in the business of appointing people who can arbitrate others’ participation. - Interesting that the NCSG – which is a vociferous proponent of privacy – is beating the drum for revealing representation. They can’t have it both ways – protect identities when they want and don’t when they find it convenient.
On Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 8:47 PM Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> wrote:
Dear All,
Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Wednesday, 01 March 2023 at 14:00 UTC. These also are posted to the wiki at: https://community.icann.org/x/yYXOCg.
Kind regards,
Marika and Julie
*GNSO SOI TF Meeting on Wednesday 01 March at 14:00 UTC*
*ACTION ITEMS: *
1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.* 2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC.* 3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*
*Notes: *
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. See: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXj...>
If no support for 2:
3. Positions on exemption language (awaiting input from ISPCP and BC)
- RySG will have feedback soon – it is an interesting compromise. Also awaiting feedback from the registrars. - RrSG: A lot of questions of where these recommendations go from here. Still could be several concerns. - If this TF can’t come to consensus on language, it will go back to the CCOICI and then to the Council. The Council would vote on changes to the Operating Procedures as a simply majority vote. Also is sent to the Board. - IPC: Appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but if you can’t disclose then you can’t disclose to the leadership. - If additional time is needed to consider, we should take it. Can also discuss at the ICANN76 Council meeting. It would be helpful for each group to state their views for the CCOICI to consider. Seems that this is the only point of disagreement in the revisions to the SOI. - NCSG: Strong opposition to the existing text. - RySG: We will still develop some examples to be posted with the SOI.
4. Possible SOI Pilot
- Not clear that this will be worth the effort and time if groups won’t change their views.
5. Possible question to ICANN legal
- Important to frame the question and get agreement that this would be helpful.
6. Confirm next steps
- Helpful to get statements of positions from TF member groups to be included in the report to the CCOICI to consider. - Deadline by 24 March to submit their statements on the exemption language. - Reconvene on 29 March at 1400 UTC to review the final report. - No further public comment period is planned unless the CCOICI makes changes. Not sure what it would achieve at this point as this already an issue that was called out in public comment. - RrSG: Consider putting this out for public comment again before going to Council as people were not paying attention. - Staff: If we do a focused public comment we need to agree on specific question(s) that would yield responses that could move this forward. Also there is the opportunity to socialize among your groups at ICANN76 – could set up an informal SOI TF meeting in a sign-up room if available (no remote access). Is there interest in this? Possibly but it would need to be later in the week. Secretariat to do a Doodle poll.
*ACTION ITEMS: *
1. *SOI TF members to provide their position statements on the exemption language by 24 March that can be included in the report to the CCOICI. Staff to specifically request feedback from IPSPC and BC as we have yet to hear from those groups.* 2. *GNSO Secretariat staff to 1) circulate a Doodle poll to schedule an informal meeting for Wednesday or Thursday at ICANN76; 2) schedule a SOI TF meeting for Wednesday, 29 March at 1400 UTC.* 3. *SOI TF members to suggest possible questions for ICANN Legal.*
_______________________________________________ GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list 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.
--
*Imran Hossen*
Managing Director | CEO
*EyHost Ltd. * | *EySoft IT Solution*
*Skype:* imran891
*Phone: *+8801619474927
www.eysoftbd.com [eysoftbd.com] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eysoftbd.com__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713...> | www.eyhost.biz [eyhost.biz] <https://urldefense.com/v3/__http:/www.eyhost.biz__;!!PtGJab4!6DbG5NBCJY713AF...>
-- *Imran Hossen* Managing Director | CEO *EyHost Ltd. * | *EySoft IT Solution* *Skype:* imran891 *Phone: *+8801619474927 www.eysoftbd.com | www.eyhost.biz
participants (3)
-
Imran Hossen -
Julie Hedlund -
Marika Konings