Hi Akinremi,

Good question. Sure, lawyers, lobbyists and consultants find it much 
easier to move around without disclosing their clients. Among other 
reasons, they are concerned someone else might take their clients.

But in policymaking proceedings and court, we need to know who an 
attorney represents. When an attorney appears in court, in almost all 
cases, they must disclose who they are representing - the court needs to 
know. Ditto for policy making proceedings. Attorneys disclosure who 
their clients are in policymaking forums to share why they are 
interested in the proceeding, and what expertise and insight they are 
bringing to it (through the clients/companies/organizations they are 
reprsenting).

I've added a little to our draft comments to share that bar rules 
actually require the disclosure of the client's name in many cases.

Best, Kathy

On 4/7/2023 1:05 PM, Johan Helsingius wrote:
> On 07/04/2023 17:32, Akinremi Peter Taiwo wrote:
>
>> Is there any justification as to why lawyers/lobbyists/consultants 
>> should not disclose their identity?
>
> "The BC is not in favor of eliminating a swath of ICANN participants
>  simply because they are ethically bound to not disclose their client
>  relationships.  There are myriad reasons – not the least of which would
>  be the fact that disclosure of those being represented could invite
>  even more gaming into the ICANN system.  For example, an attorney
>  representing a new gTLD applicant could be compelled to disclose
>  his/her relationship with that applicant, inviting a competing
>  application.  That’s just one example."
>
> We are definitely countering this. I will post final version later
> today (deadline is today).
>
>     Julf

-- 
Kathy Kleiman
President, Domain Name Rights Coalition