The call will take place on Monday, 11 July 2022 at 20:00 UTC for 60 minutes.
For other places see: https://tinyurl.com/yc7548re
- TF members to share feedback from their respective groups on the proposed recommendations
- Review implementation considerations
- Review proposed updates to GNSO Operating Procedures
- Discuss next steps:
- Final review of recommendations
- Opening of public comment period
- SOI Pilot
- Confirm next meeting – Monday 25 July at 13.00 UTC.
Apologies: Susan Payne
Notes/ Action Items
1. Staff to develop a Google doc with the questions and TF members can provide examples with suggestions from staff.
2. Staff will develop the public comment materials for TF members to discuss during the meeting on 25 July.
3. TF members to review and provide comments, if any, on the implementation implications and updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit?pli=1.
2. TF members to share feedback from their respective groups on the proposed recommendations
- RySG: No additional feedback beyond what has already been shared.
- Nothing new from the RrSG.
- No concerns from the IPC. Talked internally about wanting more information about people’s activities, recognizing that it might be difficult to make that effective.
- That is the balance we’ve been trying to find in the questions, but could be where the pilot will be helpful as WG members try out the questions and could suggest some guidance or minor changes. Helpful to have some use cases in conjunction with the public comment period. Could take one of the working groups that is active today.
- There will be further opportunities once this goes for public comment.
3. Review implementation considerations – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit?pli=1
Enforcement section: consider using “active” vs “inactive” terminology.
“Implementation Guidance (for TF review)
1. ICANN org is expected to explore the technical options for implementing these recommendations and report back to the TF and/or GNSO Council on the available options as well as any possible limitations that may exist.
2. ICANN org will also review what, if any, safeguards need to be implemented, including appropriate disclaimers and retention policies to make sure that the implementation of these new SOI requirements is consistent with applicable data protection laws.
- Need to decide what happens to the old SOIs.
- More research may be needed to make sure the implementation is applicable to data protection laws.
- Make sure that retention is balanced with transparency and data protection requirements.
- Question: Is there anything else that needs to be called out here?
- Please share any concerns after this call too.
- Think this is good and reflects where the WG landed.
- Question: On the privacy implications of publishing these – while we appreciate the desire for transparency, we live in a different environment than 10 years ago. Don’t want this to be an inadvertent way to leak personal data.
- The SOI could be accessible to the WG for a brief window, then re-secured.
- Currently, you do not have to be logged into the wiki to view the SOIs.
4. Review proposed updates to GNSO Operating Procedures – see: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit?pli=1, page 3.
- Any changes to the GNSO Operating Procedures need to be put out for public comment and the Board has oversight.
- Definitions: Added the distinction between general and specific SOIs.
- Timeliness: Noting technical feasibility of moving to an automated function re: “active” vs “inactive” SOIs. Also noting that the Secretariat or the Chair requests changes to SOIs at each meeting.
- Content: Describe in a more general way the type of information that is expected to be included with a reference to the specific questions. Allows for making changes without going through a public comment period. New language: “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.”
- Corrected some typos/errors in references to different sections.
- Berry Cobb, Staff: When this comes into use, most understand that there is a fair amount of community members that actively participate in multiple groups, including formal memberships with other statements of interest. Many of our repeat participants could have multiple SOIs for each of the activities in which they participate, which could be challenging for the member to manage content. For example, a community member who changes jobs would need to update their parent SOI and 3-5 child SOIs. A valuable compliment would be an example or two to provide real-world context that this group could develop. This could help the community and help this group to provide a rationale for their recommended changes. This could be like a mini-SOI pilot.
- Thought we talked about building this as modular, so that the basics would be in a high-level part A that then would attach to Part B, C, D, etc. for each specific group. Only the primary high-level part would need to be changed.
- But an employer change might require changes to the parent SOI and the children.
- If a group closes down, that child SOI will be marked “inactive”.
- The child SOI should look different for each group/topic. If we don’t give examples of how these should look then people will probably do the same for each group.
- Agree that it won’t be a lot of changes if we truly build it as a parent/child model. The employer is the same (in the parent SOI) regardless of what individual working groups in which the person participates (the children SOIs); if the client changes then the specific SOI would change (the child SOI), which is what we want for transparency.
- Agree with the need for fulsome examples and happy to help with developing those for the areas of the community that TF members are familiar with.
- For specific SOI changes, it could be a couple of clicks but not a lot of text to write/replace.
- Could provide background/justification for the changes to accompany the public comment forum.
ACTION ITEM: Staff to develop a Google doc with the questions and TF members can provide examples with suggestions from staff.
ACTION ITEM: TF members to review and provide comments, if any, on the implementation implications and updates to the GNSO Operating Procedures at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZrLZ5NSiSN35MeCYhxqQUP4G1v-Rzsty/edit?pli=1.
5. Discuss next steps:
a. Final review of recommendations
- How much additional time will TF members need for a final review by their groups – by next meeting on 25 July?
- Note that for public comment text we will combine all updates to the Operating Procedures, including changes to the Working Group Assessment, as well as some minor corrections.
b. Opening of public comment period
- Consider publishing later to avoid clashing with other open public comment periods. See: https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/upcoming-proceedings.
ACTION ITEM: Staff will develop the public comment materials for TF members to discuss during the meeting on 25 July.
c. SOI Pilot
- TF members to consider how they want to participate and discuss at the meeting on 25 July.
6. Confirm next meeting – Monday 25 July at 13.00 UTC.