Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 23 May 2022 20:00 UTC
Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 23 May 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 #8 Monday, 23 May 2022 at 20:00 UTC HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: 1. Draft recommendations – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit 1. TF members to review the latest draft recommendations and provide further comments and suggestions. 2. In particular, TF members to review the suggested update question #5 as follows: 5. The Activity Specific Statement of Interest consists of the following (existing questions): a. Do Are 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 provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name, for example “I represent a Registry client”] enter "Private"). 2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?us... 1. TF members to * review current enforcement escalation procedures – sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf> -- to see if they address concerns about stale/inaccurate SOIs and with respect to the question: “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?” and * Review the relevant responses in the attached outreach survey results. 1. Staff to explore the feasibility of automating requests for annual updates and “freezing” inactive/un-updated SOIs. Notes: 1. Welcome * Sent out an email with an updated version of the outreach survey results. See attached. * Responses were fairly aligned with the group’s comments except one that suggested moving away from a statement of interest format to a conflict of interest approach. Nonetheless the group may wish to consider this comment. 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: * Feedback from the RySG: * In general supportive a general and activity-specific SOI. * Suggestion was that we seem to be going too lightly and setting people up to say they are representing someone but can’t report who that is – should instead be encouraging disclosure not non-disclosure. Change the question to “Are you participating in the GNSO process as a representative of X, Y, or Z.” Make it clear that unless you are under a non-disclosure agreement you should disclose whom you are representing. * Staff will suggest the change based on the input from the RySG for the group to review. * It would be good to know if someone is representing a company/group that is not otherwise participating in the GNSO process. * The challenge is that there may be certain circumstances where someone may not be able to disclose who they are representing, but it seems that it is too easy for people to avoid disclosure. * One way could be to test this approach – or ask people who are representing clients how this could be phrased to not provide a loophole. * Could provide really specific examples or have a drop-down menu of high-level choices so at least people can pick something general. Could also have an “Other” blank text box that they would have to use if they haven’t checked one of the drop-down boxes. * We really need to be able to provide a different version/add-on for different efforts - many of us could be representing our own company or others depending on the effort in question. * Maybe need also to accommodate people who are representing multiple entities. * Comment from Aimee Meacham: Do we want to consider requiring details of Associations memberships (e.g., BT belongs to CCIA so if a CCIA rep joins, they could be representing ISPs or more likely, edge or DNS provider (or combo) and those interests are not always aligned). b. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?us... Questions: 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? Based on the responses to question 1) and 2), what updates, if any, would need to be made to the GNSO Operating Procedures? * Leverage is at the SG and C level who should know who is representing them, and also the chair. * Opportunity to question SOI statements at the beginning of meetings. * Do the current escalation procedures address the enforcement issues? * Could there be an annual check-up – review in January and make sure the SOI is still accurate and then confirm by February. Any that aren’t confirmed should get terminated and they would be removed from the WG. * Could consider automated reminders and freezing an SOI until updated. c. Confirm next steps HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: 1. Draft recommendations – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit 1. TF members to review the latest draft recommendations and provide further comments and suggestions. 2. In particular, TF members to review the suggested update question #5 as follows: 5. The Activity Specific Statement of Interest consists of the following (existing questions): a. Do Are 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 provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name, for example “I represent a Registry client”] enter "Private"). 2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?us... 1. TF members to * review current enforcement escalation procedures – sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the GNSO Operating Procedures<https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-24oct19-en.pdf> -- to see if they address concerns about stale/inaccurate SOIs and with respect to the question: “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?” and * Review the relevant responses in the attached outreach survey results. 1. Staff to explore the feasibility of automating requests for annual updates and “freezing” inactive/un-updated SOIs. 3. Wrap up & confirmation of next meeting (Monday 6 June at 13.00 UTC)
Reminder – please see the action items below. Note that the staff support team has gone ahead and has accepted the edits that have been previously reviewed and discussed in the recommendations document. In redline you will find the update made based on the discussion during the last meeting. Unless there are further issues flagged in relation to the current set of recommendations, we’ll aim to continue with considering SOI escalation and enforcement procedures during the 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, 23 May 2022 at 23:18 To: "gnso-soi-tf@icann.org" <gnso-soi-tf@icann.org> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Action Items & Notes: SOI TF Meeting 23 May 2022 20:00 UTC Dear All, Please see below the action items and brief notes from today’s SOI Task Force meeting on Monday, 23 May 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 #8 Monday, 23 May 2022 at 20:00 UTC HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: 1. 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. TF members to review the latest draft recommendations and provide further comments and suggestions. 2. In particular, TF members to review the suggested update question #5 as follows: 5. The Activity Specific Statement of Interest consists of the following (existing questions): a. Do Are 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 provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name, for example “I represent a Registry client”] enter "Private"). 2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?us... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S...> 1. TF members to * review current enforcement escalation procedures – sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-2...> -- to see if they address concerns about stale/inaccurate SOIs and with respect to the question: “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?” and * Review the relevant responses in the attached outreach survey results. 1. Staff to explore the feasibility of automating requests for annual updates and “freezing” inactive/un-updated SOIs. Notes: 1. Welcome * Sent out an email with an updated version of the outreach survey results. See attached. * Responses were fairly aligned with the group’s comments except one that suggested moving away from a statement of interest format to a conflict of interest approach. Nonetheless the group may wish to consider this comment. 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: * Feedback from the RySG: * In general supportive a general and activity-specific SOI. * Suggestion was that we seem to be going too lightly and setting people up to say they are representing someone but can’t report who that is – should instead be encouraging disclosure not non-disclosure. Change the question to “Are you participating in the GNSO process as a representative of X, Y, or Z.” Make it clear that unless you are under a non-disclosure agreement you should disclose whom you are representing. * Staff will suggest the change based on the input from the RySG for the group to review. * It would be good to know if someone is representing a company/group that is not otherwise participating in the GNSO process. * The challenge is that there may be certain circumstances where someone may not be able to disclose who they are representing, but it seems that it is too easy for people to avoid disclosure. * One way could be to test this approach – or ask people who are representing clients how this could be phrased to not provide a loophole. * Could provide really specific examples or have a drop-down menu of high-level choices so at least people can pick something general. Could also have an “Other” blank text box that they would have to use if they haven’t checked one of the drop-down boxes. * We really need to be able to provide a different version/add-on for different efforts - many of us could be representing our own company or others depending on the effort in question. * Maybe need also to accommodate people who are representing multiple entities. * Comment from Aimee Meacham: Do we want to consider requiring details of Associations memberships (e.g., BT belongs to CCIA so if a CCIA rep joins, they could be representing ISPs or more likely, edge or DNS provider (or combo) and those interests are not always aligned). b. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?us... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S...> Questions: 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? Based on the responses to question 1) and 2), what updates, if any, would need to be made to the GNSO Operating Procedures? * Leverage is at the SG and C level who should know who is representing them, and also the chair. * Opportunity to question SOI statements at the beginning of meetings. * Do the current escalation procedures address the enforcement issues? * Could there be an annual check-up – review in January and make sure the SOI is still accurate and then confirm by February. Any that aren’t confirmed should get terminated and they would be removed from the WG. * Could consider automated reminders and freezing an SOI until updated. c. Confirm next steps HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS: 1. 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. TF members to review the latest draft recommendations and provide further comments and suggestions. 2. In particular, TF members to review the suggested update question #5 as follows: 5. The Activity Specific Statement of Interest consists of the following (existing questions): a. Do Are 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 provide details on which ethical obligations prevent you from disclosing and provide a high level description of the entity that you are representing without disclosing its name, for example “I represent a Registry client”] enter "Private"). 2. SOI TF Questions for Input – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S53oJb13XtyrqNuSt_8m/edit?us... [docs.google.com]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/docs.google.com/document/d/1-mVupfkJF3e6S...> 1. TF members to * review current enforcement escalation procedures – sections 6.4 and 6.5 of the GNSO Operating Procedures [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-2...> -- to see if they address concerns about stale/inaccurate SOIs and with respect to the question: “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?” and * Review the relevant responses in the attached outreach survey results. 1. Staff to explore the feasibility of automating requests for annual updates and “freezing” inactive/un-updated SOIs. 3. Wrap up & confirmation of next meeting (Monday 6 June at 13.00 UTC)
participants (2)
-
Julie Hedlund -
Marika Konings