Thank you Manju!
Our position is very clear - we believe in transparency, and are
strongly against the exemption.
I think it would be good to get a situation report from our
representative in the task force.
Julf
On 16/02/2023 12:12, 陳曼茹 Manju Chen wrote:
> 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 <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 <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* <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2023 at 4:31 PM
> Subject: [GNSO-SOI-TF] Please respond - TF follow up questions
> To: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
>
> 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 <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….’)?____
>
> __ __
>
> 2. *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?____
>
> __ __
>
> 3. *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
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-soi-tf
> <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
> <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service
> (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <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.
|
