Statement of Interest discussions

[陳曼茹 Manju Chen]

Hi all,

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.

The Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous
Improvement (CCOICI) currently is reviewing the recommendation report on
Statement of Interest (see:
https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-ccoici/2023-April/000317.html)
delivered by the Task Force (TF) of SOI before passing it to the Council.

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.

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:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsosoi/Manju+Chen++SOI)

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.

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.

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.

I personally think this is an acceptable middle ground. Hope you feel the
same.

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.

Best,
Manju
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20230523/d38ee838/attachment.htm>