Page History
...
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Zoom Recording (including audio, visual, rough transcript and chat) |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items ACTION ITEMS:
Notes:
2. Consider possible changes to the following language currently contained in the proposed updates to the SOI: “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.” (see also public comments submitted:https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]) Input from IPC, see also: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103865008760080873867&rtpof=true&sd=true:
Discussion:
Current proposed 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: SOI: Staff to draft revised language and provide to the TF on the list for review re: 1) what rules are preventing them from disclosing and allowing this to be challenged; 2) more specific in the examples we provide. Consider whether there are other examples that may apply, such as the IETF. 3. Confirm whether the following language to be included in the GNSO Operating Procedures provides sufficient flexibility to make updates to the SOI as deemed necessary: “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”. (see also public comments submitted: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13jhExwduE7qrRovZFDw5FwAjtUlSffwz/edit [docs.google.com]) Comment from Susan: “b)I think we risk overburdening Council here if they have to start considering the SOI requirements for every activity. 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.”
4. Review updated version of Recommendations Report (see attached) and consider outstanding issues:
a. SOI Samples Current language: “A number of use cases have been developed [to be completed following the public comment forum] by the TF that will serve as example / instructions for those completing the templates to provide the appropriate level of detail / information.”
ACTION ITEM: Recommendations Report: Susan Payne, IPC to provide some use case examples. Other TF members are encourage to do so as well. See the sample google doc at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-i7oTXv_7eRibJK8a8FQ8Df9CCClWuH_/edit. b. Pilot
ACTION ITEM: Recommendations Report: Staff to revise the language referencing the pilot to indicate that testing may occur as part of implementation. 5. Confirm next steps
ACTION ITEM: Secretariat staff to schedule a meeting for 25 January at 1400 UTC. |