2022-12-07 SOI Taskforce - Meeting #15
The call will take place on Wednesday, 07 December 2022 at 14:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/326a973y
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS
PARTICIPATION
Apologies: none
Notes/ Action Items
HOMEWORK/ACTION ITEMS -- DUE BY 31 December 2022:
TF members from the IPC, BC, and RySG (and others as they wish) to consult with their members concerning how they deal with disclosures of clients/relationships in other contexts and suggest revisions if any to the following language: “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’ or ‘I am representing a non-GNSO related entity.’”
DUE BY INSERT: TF members to review the following language from the revised SOI to confirm that it provides sufficient flexibility: “The detailed questions will be made publicly available and may be reviewed and revised by the GNSO Council from time to time using its relevant processes.”
DUE BY INSERT: TF members to review the sample form to determine whether it provides sufficient guidance, or suggest any further materials or guidance that may be helpful
Staff to schedule a meeting the week of 09 January 2023 after considering whether there is a time of day that is more suitable for the various TF member time zones.
Notes:
Welcome and SOIs
No updates to SOIs.
Susan Kawaguchi is listed as a member on the wiki, but she is no longer a member so we’ll get that updated.
2. Public Comment Review
See the discussion table at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]. See also the comments in full at: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/updates-to-the-gnso-statement-of-interest-soi-procedures-and-requirements-09-09-2022/submissions.
Summary of Comments:
Staff prepared a discussion table (see link above) to help facilitate review of the comments.
Joint public comment periods on both changes to the SOI and to the WG Self-Assessment (by CCOICI).
Comments on requirement to disclose relationships – against allowing the “loophole”.
Suggestion that SOI questions should only be baseline questions. As currently foreseen the Operation Procedures would allow for that flexibility.
Sample SOI: Comments from Elizabeth Reed on the importance of guidance materials. Group has not completed those materials but agreed they would be helpful.
Discussion:
Talked about getting legal guidance on whether we can require disclosure, but didn’t do that. Think we should get some guidance on how we can align ourselves with international standards. Do agree that we should set a minimum standard: “Perhaps we have a baseline set of questions but give the WG leadership a discretion to require additional information specific to work chartered to them” (Susan and agreed by Karen) – Operating Procedures allows for flexibility in the questions and requirements for each WG.
Question: Is it sufficient to remove the language – no alternative path provided or “loophole” – “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’ or ‘I am representing a non-GNSO related entity.” Staff concern would be what kind of enforcement is expected here?
Hesitant to remove the language. Acknowledge the concern that it is a large loophole, but we did have an exception in the current SOI. Instead we could massage the language to make it clearer.
Current exception in the SOI was considered a weakness compared to the revised provision. How can we move forward – did people look at the other practices that were identified? Also reach out to your constituencies – how do they do that in working with other entities. Also, suggest revised language to suggest why these relationships cannot be disclosed.
With regard to the original language: Example was SubPro with such a lack of consensus because of entrenched interests. Is there some way to allow, when trying to find consensus, to require participants to disclose client to participate in a consensus call.
Isn’t it more knowing what their positioning/interest is? Does it matter who is the client? The question is what would be the harm in disclosing that? It also is required to disclose in other activities (EU, USG).
To address the comments should explain why this is different from disclosures in other contexts (EU/USG). Could get feedback from IPC, BC, and RySG on what they do and what types of guidance/examples to provide.
How much time would you need to get feedback? Maybe 2-3 weeks – bringing us to the end of the year. Provide feedback on the list and reconvene early next year.
ACTION ITEM TF members from the IPC, BC, and RySG (and others as they wish) to consult with their members concerning how they deal with disclosures of clients/relationships in other contexts and suggest revisions if any to the following language: “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’ or ‘I am representing a non-GNSO related entity.’”
ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the following language from the revised SOI to confirm that it provides sufficient flexibility: “The detailed questions will be made publicly available and may be reviewed and revised by the GNSO Council from time to time using its relevant processes.”
ACTION ITEM: TF members to review the sample form to determine whether it provides sufficient guidance, or suggest any further materials or guidance that may be helpful
3. Confirm next steps and next meeting (if necessary)
Schedule a meeting for early January 2023 at 1400 UTC or other time that works for the various time zones.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to schedule a meeting the week of 09 January 2023 after considering whether there is a time of day that is more suitable for the various TF member time zones.
4. AOB: None