• Accept As-Is
• Accept With modification
• Reject

Rationale:

MK: Accept as-is.

30

Paul Diaz

gTLD Registries Stakeholder Group

(Support) The RySG suggests that the following be added at the end of the first sentence of this recommendation: “that is posted on the GNSO website.” Otherwise, some may assume that their SOI could be posted anywhere. Regarding the second half of the third sentence of the recommendation (…the participant’s interest or position must be disclosed), more detail should be provided about what and how it must be disclosed. On a more minor point, references to statements of interest are inconsistent throughout the document: SoI, SOI, Statement of Interest.

67

Osvaldo Novoa

ISPCP

(Support)

102

Etienne Sanz De Acedo, Lori Schulman

INTA

With regard to the recommendation dealing with SOI’s however, INTA considers that this does not go far enough in order to address the identified concern over a lack of transparency of the interests of those participating within the GNSO. The recommendation relates to members of the GNSO Council, Executive Committee members of Stakeholder Groups, Constituencies and Working Group members. Within Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies themselves a great deal of work is done which is not as part of a GNSO working group, for example in the preparation of public comments. INTA considers that anyone who is actively participating on an issue should be required to identify their “interest”. In doing so, merely identifying the “bodies or clients” represented is not sufficient for transparency, unless that body or client’s “interest” is also identified.

128

Will Hudson

Google

If adopted would improve the transparency of the policy development process and promote greater confidence in the validity of adopted policies.

191

Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

The BC supports this recommendation.

193

Laura Covington, J. Scott Evans, Marie Pattullo

Business Constituency

We fully support transparency and a robust system that requires complete and up-to-date SOI’s. We need clarity, however, on who would decide, and how, that an individual “would not be permitted to participate”.

217

Stephanie Perrin

NCUC/NCSG

IS this not already the rule?

263

Greg Shatan

IPC

(Support) It is essential that there be complete transparency of the interests of those who participate in the development and implementation of ICANN policy. The IPC considers that, in order to address the identified concern over a lack of transparency of the interests of those participating within the GNSO, this Recommendation 26 should not be limited to GNSO Council, Executive Committee members of SGs and Cs and WG members. A significant amount of work relating to the development and implementation of policy is done at the SG and C level, for example in the preparation of public comments. The IPC considers therefore that anyone who is actively participating on an issue should be required to identify their “interest” in order that others are properly informed when taking their comments into account. Whilst we agree that ideally the bodies or clients represented would be identified, as a matter of ethics attorneys may not always be able to identify their clients. In those circumstances the approach proposed in the Recommendation, that the interest or position be disclosed, seems a sensible and adequate compromise. In any event, merely identifying the “bodies or clients” represented may not be sufficient for transparency, unless that body or client’s “interest” is also identified, since it may not always be possible for third parties to know this without a great deal of research, or even at all. The IPC also considers that the current SOI form should be redrafted, and that guidance on how to complete the form would be beneficial. Many existing participants do submit SOIs but the manner in which they are completed means that they may not always be meaningful or effective in identifying the “interest” in question. It is possible to complete the current SOI form in such a way as to answer the questions but without complying with the spirit of the disclosure obligation, either deliberately or due to a genuine misunderstanding. The expansion resulting from the New gTLD Program also now means that an individual or their employer company may participate in more than one SG or C. For example a representative of a Brand TLD may participate in both the BC and/or IPC and the RySG. It would be helpful for the SOI form and/or procedures to be revised to better accommodate this, and the fact that someone may participate on different issues in different capacities.

307

Amr Elsadr

I agree.

337

Olivier Crepin-Leblond

ALAC

(Support) The ALAC fully supports this and has also implemented such guidelines for all ALAC members. It has also opened up voluntary SoIs for members in the ALAC’s Working Groups. Making SoIs mandatory is a good step forward.

384

Brett Fausett, https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-rrsg/transcript-rysg-rrsg-23jun15-en

RyRr SG

On transparency one of the recommendations was that there be transparency around the statements of interest I believe.  Have you thought about how you’ll handle, you know, it’s easy for those of us in the room. We all, you know, have typically a company that is paying for us to be here.  It is less easy for some members of the IPC who obviously represent trademark interest but they’ll often say that they’re speaking in their personal capacity or they’re representing their law firm.  They don’t actually identify the clients who ultimately have an interest in their advocacy. So I’m wondering how you address people whose interest may not be as clear as it is for those of us who are registries and registrars.

392

Jimson Olufuye, https://buenosaires53.icann.org/en/schedule/tue-bc/transcript-bc-23jun15-en

Business Constituency

I just wanted to try a little more light on those recommendations with respect to transparency support and training for the constituency. Yes, well like maybe just a little more elimination concerning maybe some gaps that you identified with respect to constituency, operational floor or training needs.