Hi Marika,

Here is the NCSG statement on the SOI TF report.

	Julf


- - - -
The ICANN Statement of Interest (SOI) is integral to the transparency 
and accountability of  healthy policymaking processes. ICANN 
policymaking processes are open to the public, encouraging participation 
from all. To prevent capture by powerful individuals or groups, it is 
crucial to be aware of whose interests are being represented. 
Confidentiality in SOIs jeopardizes the integrity of the policymaking 
process, making it more susceptible to capture. Attorney-client 
privilege should not apply to public policy-making. If clients are not 
willing to be disclosed when participating in policy processes, they 
should not be represented.

As the response from the BC specifically mentions NCSG, we would like to 
address the misunderstanding that BC seems to have about privacy and 
transparency supposedly not being compatible. Privacy and transparency 
are not adverse to each other, and the NCSG charter specifically 
mentions transparency as one of the Principles for both Members and 
Leaders. Public interest and noncommercial groups regularly advocate for 
appropriate privacy AND appropriate transparency. The same people who 
are most ardent advocates for privacy are also the leaders of Freedom of 
Information legislation and initiatives around the world that protect 
it.  Public processes benefit from knowing who is representing who and 
then balancing the interests of the many different participants in a 
proceeding.

Conflating invasion of privacy with Statement of Interest in public 
policy-making is disingenuous, if not dangerous. We need to know how our 
policy making groups work; we need open and transparent policy-making 
processes, and this is only possible when we know, with no shadow of a 
doubt, which parties are sitting at the table influencing policy decisions.

Privacy and transparency are part of the very same process - they work 
hand in hand to make sure that no single or few powerful entities make 
decisions for all.

Finally, NCSG must respectfully contest the underlying proposition by 
the BC that attorneys cannot disclose their clients in policymaking 
proceedings.  In very few circumstances is the “fact of the 
representation” considered confidential; it’s the information the client 
discloses, the substance of the representation, that is confidential.

We provide a few examples:

[1] See Cal. Formal Op. 2011-182 (2011). "In most situations, the 
identity of a client is not considered confidential and in such 
circumstances Attorney may disclose the fact of the representation to 
Prospective Client without Witness Client's consent." Citing to Los 
Angeles County Bar Association Professional Responsibility and Ethics 
Committee Op. 456 (1989). 
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2018/03/aba-clarifies-lawyers-confidentiality-obligations 


[2] Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, The Rules of Professional Conduct.

3.9 Advocate in Nonadjudicative Proceedings

A lawyer representing a client before a legislative body or 
administrative agency in a nonadjudicative proceeding shall disclose 
that the appearance is in a representative capacity and shall conform to 
the provisions of Rules 3.3(a) through (c), 3.4(a) through (c), and 3.5.
https://www.padisciplinaryboard.org/Storage/media/pdfs/20210920/140616-rpc2021-08-25amended.pdf 


We look forward to a rapid completion of this important discussion and
to full and fair disclosure in the future!