Reminder: ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the Draft SOI Recommendations at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...> and provide comments/suggestions by Thursday, 05 May 2022. Best regards, Julie and Marika From: GNSO-SOI-TF <gnso-soi-tf-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Julie Hedlund <julie.hedlund@icann.org> Date: Monday, 25 April 2022 at 22:57 To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 25 April 2022 20:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 25 April 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 #6 Monday, 25 April 2022 at 20:00 UTC Action Items: ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the Draft SOI Recommendations at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...> and provide comments/suggestions by Thursday, 05 May 2022. Notes: 1. Welcome a. Reminder – encourage participation in the outreach survey (https://engage.clicktools.com/v2/kakajko1rvzr#page1 [engage.clicktools.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/engage.clicktools.com/v2/kakajko1rvzr*pag...> – deadline for input 4 May) * Staff to reach out to Policy colleague supporting non-GNSO groups to encourage input. * Call for input was published in the community digest. 2. Continue review of mind map (see attached) Overview: * Separate the SOI into two parts: general and activity specific. * General SOI would be the parent and activity specific SOI would be the child. * The questions would largely remain as they are, but separated into two SOI. * Helpful to develop specific use cases so people understand what we are looking for. * Explore whether there is an annual reminder for the general SOI; for the activity specific it would need to be updated if participation in the activity changes. Discussion: * Question: We should make a distinction in the activity specific statements of interest – there is also a component where we would say you would also not comment on the perspective of other constituencies other than your own/declared for specific statement of interest – is there more work to be done for the activity specific SOI? Answer: Some groups have started using Statements of Participation; people also sometimes switch hats, but that should be documented. If the group thinks that this should be covered in the activity specific SOI, what would the question be or how to ensure that this is announced. * If it's an open WG someone could absolutely be wearing multiple hats. * think it’s more problematic in representative WGs, but I think it should be discouraged generally. * Could try to flesh this out a bit more. If we could have some guidance/use case to reference for the activity specific SOI. * We also need to start giving more concrete guidance when the groups are set up what are the expectations. Sometimes not communicated clearly to the rep from their SG/C. Someone might think they are participating as an individual, not as a representative. * Could be put into the instructions for when the requests for membership go out. * The representative model is more vulnerable to this type of problem. Should be considered in bad form to participate as a rep from one group, but then speak on behalf of another group. * Totally agree that it's communication - it's just something I would think would head off potential problems when you get to the SOI itself. * I do think there's a big distinction between a rep model, where you are supposed to speak for your group and a PDP where anyone can join and some people may well have more than one perspective. Karen's a brand owner and you cannot expect her to only represent her dotBrand interest and not her brand owner interest - provided the SOI explains adequately. * Could also be guidance for the chair to watch out for this. * Instructions should make crystal clear to speak only on behalf of the group you are representing. * This is a problem that lies with the SG/C. In some groups it’s very clear, for others it is really hard to get a position from the rep. * FAQs and recommended practices it could be helpful. But not sure it is on point for this TF. 3. Draft of Suggested SOI Recommendations: * Should align with what we’ve discussed thus far. * Attempt to document what the TF has discussed. The current Statement of Interest template is divided into two parts, namely: * General Statement of Interest which contains general information about a participant to understand their background and motivation for participating in GNSO activities. * Activity Specific Statement of Interest which is information that is provided specific to the activity a participant has requested to participate in. For example, what is their motivation for participation in that activity as well as possible impact on the individual and/or their employer of the outcomes of the process. General SOI questions: * Who you are, where you reside, who you work for, etc. * Consider whether a yearly reminder should be sent. * Should be able to delete their SOI if no longer applicable. Wouldn’t want to expand this beyond the SOI. May need to ask if this is something we need to provide. * Trying to avoid some future scenario where an old transcript or mailing list is redacted to the point where it is no longer a complete record of previous work. * Maybe allow people to request a deletion and to have that request reviewed. Activity Specific SOI: * Might not want this information to be deleted as it’s helpful as a matter of record. * Completed for each activity. * Working with the original list of question. Questions to consider: * #5a: Do you believe you are participating in the GNSO policy process as a representative of any individual or entity, whether paid or unpaid? 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? * #5b(i): Do you have any type of material interest in ICANN GNSO policy development processes and outcomes? Question: Should this be updated to say “you, your employer or your client(s)”? * #5b(ii): Are there any arrangements/agreements between you and any other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your participation as a work team member? Question: Question: Should “client” be added here to make specific that if there is an arrangement with a client it should be called out here? * #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? * Once the TF has agreed on the details of the recommendations, we can begin the revision to the SOI section of the GNSO Operating Procedures. * Once we’ve gone through this exercise we will look at enforcement. 4. Confirm next steps & next meeting (Monday 9 May at 13.00 UTC) Next Steps: * Staff to post draft recommendations as a Google document. * TF members to comment/suggest further details to include, questions, etc. * Next meeting, hope to have the results of the survey to review. ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the Draft SOI Recommendations at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35M...> and provide comments/suggestions by Thursday, 05 May 2022.