[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Please respond - TF follow up questions

[陳曼茹 Manju Chen]

Hi NCSG members,

The Statement of Interest Task Force (SOI-TF) commissioned by the GNSO
Council Committee for Overseeing and Implementing Continuous Improvement
(CCOICI) was assigned to review the current SOI used inside of GNSO and
recommend improvements if needed.

The Task Force published its recommendation report last year for public
comments. You can find the report here:
https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/generic-names-supporting-organization-council-gnso-council/gnso-statement-interest-task-force-review-soi-requirements-09-09-2022-en.pdf

In the report, the TF recommends dividing the current SOI into 2 parts,
namely:

   1. General Statement of Interest which contains general information
   about a participant to understand their background and motivation for
   participating in GNSO activities.
   2. 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.

The Task Force has reached a stalemate recently regarding the Activity
Specific SOI. It is about the exemption language for when WG members are
prevented from revealing specific information of who exactly they
represent/are paid to participate by professional ethical obligations such
as attorney-client agreement.

The staff has helped draft the exemption language:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=100305727513678344340&rtpof=true&sd=true

IPC is in favor of the exemption, while RySG and RrSG are strongly against,
arguing that exemption will render the SOI meaningless.

Other SG/Cs on the Task Force have not voiced their position regarding this
issue. Now they're asked to due to the stalemate. While I'm not the NCSG
representative on this Task Force (I'm the CCOICI liaison), I thought I'd
bring this to your attention so we can have a position for our
representative to bring back to the Task Force.

I'm also attaching the most recent email from staff for the SOI-TF for your
reference.

Best,
Manju

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 4:31 PM
Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Please respond - TF follow up questions
To: gnso-soi-tf at icann.org <gnso-soi-tf at icann.org>


Hi All,



Following up on yesterday’s conversation, here are some further details on
the different suggestions with specific questions for the TF to provide
your feedback on:



   1. *Position on exemption language*:



We’ve heard the views of the IPC, RySG and RrSG representatives in relation
to the exemption language (see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aFuwubJUiIbXjui9mT6M9n1iSd-N_puL/edit?pli=1).




*Question for the ISPCP, BC, NCSG/NCUC reps*: Please share your groups view
with the mailing list. Would you be in favor of keeping the exemption
language as proposed in the google doc, or removing it (the part that
starts with ‘If professional ethical obligations prevent you….’)?



   1. *Possible SOI pilot:*



During today’s SOI Task Force meeting, the staff support team suggested
that before finalizing the report and recommendations, the Task Force could
consider conducting a pilot in which it would ask the participants of one
or two of the current PDPs (IDNs and Transfers) to complete the SOI as
proposed by the SOI Task Force, including the latest exemption language.
This may provide the Task Force with further insights into how the SOI
would be filled out in practice and whether the exemption would be invoked
by many of the participants. Although it may not address all the concerns
expressed, the practical experience may provide further insights that could
help move the deliberations of the TF forward. If there is support for this
approach, we would like to suggest the following steps:



   1. Request Manju in her capacity as CCOICI chair and liaison to the TF
   to communicate to the Council the remaining issue that the TF is aiming to
   resolve and the proposal to pilot the new SOI with the two ongoing PDPs to
   gather further information and insights that may help inform the TF’s
   deliberations.
   2. If there is no objection from the Council for following this
   approach, staff support team to work with the Council liaisons to these
   PDPs to explain the pilot and request participation. As part of the pilot,
   respondents would also be asked to share their feedback on the new SOI as
   proposed.
   3. TF to review the SOI entries and consider if/how the responses and
   feedback provided impact the TF’s view.
   4. TF to finalize report for submission to CCOICI/GNSO Council.



*Question for the TF*: Do you agree that conducting a pilot may be helpful
in gathering further information that could help resolve the current
stalemate on the exemption language? If not, do you have other suggestions
for how to break the stalemate, or should the TF finalize its report and
outline the different positions on this particular issue so that the
CCOICI/Council can consider if/how to resolve it?



   1. *Possible question to ICANN Legal *



It was suggested during the meeting that input from ICANN legal may help
further inform the discussion. The following question was put forward as a
suggestion: “"Is there a case where under international or local law where
a lawyer or consultant is prohibited from obtaining an informed consent of
their client to disclose their representation in a given GNSO effort?"
However, it was pointed out that this question may be overly broad if it
would be expected to cover local laws in all countries across the world.
Similarly, the IPC reps have expressed previously that one concern with
this approach (informed consent) is that if consent is not be provided, it
would effectively exclude someone from participating.



*Question to the TF*: What input could ICANN legal provide that you expect
would help inform the TF’s discussion on the exemption language?



*Please provide your feedback on these questions as soon as possible, but
no later than Friday 24 February* so we can plan accordingly for the next
meeting which is scheduled for Wednesday 1 March at 14.00 UTC.



Thanks,



Julie and Marika


_______________________________________________
GNSO-SOI-TF mailing list
GNSO-SOI-TF at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20230216/a53be2da/attachment.htm>