<html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I agree with you Manju, and lets face it, this may be the best we
can get. However, even a good clear SOI does not prevent us from
having these small teams overrun with reps from one company. for
instance, if there were an IRT implementing a rather long and
tortuous policy process that STILL had vague language in the final
recommendations (most do), there could be a preponderance of one
commercial interest running the IRT. They could have their
lawyers in the IPC, their techies in the SSAC, business reps in
the BC, recipients of grants and foundation work in our own NCSG,
they could themselves be registrars and registries.....I trust you
get my drift. We need to further examine the principles in our
procedures manual for when folks ought to recuse themselves. It
is harder to hold people to this without full transparency in the
SOI, but it is what it is (as that annoying saying goes). Next
step is to have stiffer procedures for recusal. <br>
</p>
<p>cheers Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2023-05-23 2:17 a.m., 陳曼茹 Manju Chen
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CAMeQZi2sYTzY85=3nwKPiVCBHViEW0h3tF-AG3-MAUDOiKA9Lw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Hi all, </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">To make
up for my confusing sharing in yesterday's policy call, I'd
like to explain again via text the context of SOI and why I
think the proposal I shared was an acceptable middle ground. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">The
Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous
Improvement (CCOICI) currently is reviewing the recommendation
report on Statement of Interest (see: <a href="https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html</a>)
delivered by the Task Force (TF) of SOI before passing it to
the Council.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">One
particular issue that didn't receive consensus support from
the TF was regarding the exemption language. Simply put, it is
for people who are prevented to reveal the identity of the
party they're representing when participating in specific
activities in ICANN.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">One thing
to keep in mind is that the current SOI, the one most of us
have filled in to be a member of GNSO WG or run for a
position, already ALLOWS exemption. Moreover, in the current
SOI, those who wish to invoke exemption only have to say
'private'. (Check the question 10 of my SOI for example: <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Manju+Chen++SOI" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Manju+Chen++SOI</a>)</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">With that
in mind, if you see the language proposed now in the TF-SOI's
recommendation report (page 7), it is actually a huge
improvement from the original language. The person will be
asked to provide the specific ethical obligation they're
invoking and describe the party they represent without naming
the name.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">On top of
this, I'd also pointed out that under GNSO PDP 3.0, most
working groups now adopt the representative model, meaning the
WG members are appointed by their SOs/ACs/SGs/Cs. They will
be, in effect, representing the SO/AC/SG/C, not whoever pay
them salaries. In the case where WG adopts a representative +
open model (the IDN EPDP for example), 'participants' who are
not appointed by SO/AC/SG/C, while participating fully in WG's
deliberations, are not taken into account in consensus call.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">This
leads to the middle ground proposal I briefly touched on
during our policy call. Those who invoke the exemption will
participate in the deliberations fully but not taken into
account for the consensus call. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">I
personally think this is an acceptable middle ground. Hope you
feel the same.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Last but
not least, as the chair of CCOICI, I'll have to be neutral in
the discussion. However, we do have both NCUC and NPOC rep on
the CCOICI. If the NCSG finds the middle ground proposal
acceptable, I hope our 2 reps will share this stance with the
committee during our next CCOICI meeting.</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Best,</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small">Manju</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:small"><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>