I agree with Julf. I used to be on this group over a year ago but had to withdraw due to workload issues. I feel very strongly that failure to disclose conflict of interest issues while participating in policy development is one of the MS model’s biggest weaknesses. Because of the inordinate power of some players in the IT/DNS/IP ecosystem, the ability of legal counsel to act for a given party whilst not disclosing that relationship could put us in a position of having several WG members actually working for the interests of one company. That fact needs to be disclosed. We need, perhaps, to have escrowed disclosure of clients in such circumstances (eg only the Chair of the Chartering WG would know the client names) to ensure fair and equitable representation of interests on the group.
I will take a look at the exemption language and see if I can come up with something.
Stephanie Perrin
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 16, 2023, at 06:39, Johan Helsingius <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> 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.
|
