Statement of Interest discussions

[Stephanie E Perrin]

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.

cheers Stephanie Perrin

On 2023-05-23 2:17 a.m., 陳曼茹 Manju Chen wrote:
> 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/fbba7c71/attachment.htm>