October 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Notes-Recordings-Transcript links for WP4 Meeting | 30 October
by Brenda Brewer Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for the WP-4 meeting on 30 October will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/mLNYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Action Item --> ACTION ITEM - Leon to check with WP2. ACTION ITEM - By 1 Nov, Tatiana and Greg to provide language that clarifies that no commitment to ruggie principles. ACTION ITEM - Brenda to send a calendar invite. ACTION ITEM: Drafters to structure document based on th following structure 0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. Explanation by Paul Twomey on practical steps involved in changes of TLD operator (focused on ccTLD) Concerns about ruggie principles applying to business partners: how do we interpret them with respect to ICANN. How far do we wish to have ICANN accountable for human rights tests? IANA processes are constant operational processes based on ruggie principles which could be contrary to human rights. Where will boundary apply here? We should not put at risk IANA necessity to deal with operations. If we were to apply human rights to all operations, existing rules will result in disputes. Feedback: - It was never decision of WP4/CCWG to adopt ruggie principles as they are and implement them. They are guidelines. If we need to implement them, we need to develop a proper human rights policy. It should be in WS2 but we need to toroughly look at it i.e. how it is balanced. - We should not be going into detail in particular with ccTLDs. We should not be engaged in that in WS1. This is not the UN's Human Rights Committee. We should avoid referring to countries and remain neutral. - It has never been intent to adopt these principles for WS1. It is a high level notion of respect. Only national courts are able to deal with claims. - It was not the intention to commit to Ruggie principles. Discussions should go to Work Stream 2. It should be reflected briefly in document. There should not be commitment to ruggies principles. - Detailed explanation of to what extent ruggie principles form accountability is clearly WS1. There needs to be a high level statement in WS1. Bullet statements: ICANN will respect human rights, UN declaration, Ruggie. UN declaration to avoid ambiguity and ruggie goes to WS2. --> agreement in Dublin not to include references to UN - We need to be wise in understanding that we are operating in not-for-profit, ICANN will have to follow rule of law. We need to be careful about how could activitsts could take wording we use to Court. - Suggestion to add a 12th point to the Core Values in the bylaws stating "12. In its operations, ICANN will respect internationally recognized human rights. "It seems a modest step that can be developed further in WS2 if necessary. --> ACTION ITEM - Leon to check with WP2. - Uncomfortable with definition as it is broad. Reference to UDHR - In Dublin we indicated that the general language would be refined. We will need to raise issues - resolving them is WS2 - recognizing them is WS1. Respect conveys set of tasks. We need to convey what attitude is towards ruggie principles. --> Transcript shows that we would refine option 1 language. - Disagree with Greg that word respect in Bylaws change will mean that we are committed to Ruggie principle. - We should operate under a defined breakdown 0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on respect to exclude protection, 5) AOB - Documentation of our decisions will be needed. Input was already circulated on this. We should use that structure. - Be non-political ACTION ITEM - By 1 Nov, Tatiana and Greg to provide language that clarifies that no commitment to ruggie principles. CONCLUSION - 1) We need to fine tune our Bylaw guidelines as a priority; 2) We need to focus on explanatory note; 3) We need to assess whether transitional Bylaw would be good placeholder for framework. Suggest transitional Bylaw to ensure that discussion will happen in WS2. We cannot deviate discussion into covering more issues. We need to refine the Bylaw language that we will be proposing, drafting rationale and consider adding the transitional Bylaw. Monday, 2 Nov - 13:00 UTC call to finalize document for CCWG consideration ACTION ITEM - Brenda to send a calendar invite. ACTION ITEM: Drafters to structure document based on th following structure 0) Summary, 1) Broad Scope Language, 2) Not mentioning specific human rights (not cherry picking) 3) Focus on mission and scope to exclude enforcement, 4) focus on respect to excluse protection, 5) AOB Review of proposed addition to our PC2 document Proposed text for transitional Bylaw. Feedback: - Suggest "we will work as expeditiously as possible" - Should is a soft stop --> This will be for lawyers who develop Bylaws - We are placing ourselves to 12-month window where other parties will do interpretation of work of us and risk litigation. - Clarify that whole status exist so that it is clear that risk of having others interpret it for us without guidance needs to be shut off. --> Transitional Bylaw would put it on hold until framework is properly developed CONCLUSION OF CALL We will be finalizing documents that will be in next report. We will hold a call on Monday to analyse docs. We will be drafting second document that will be included in next proposal.

1 0

ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability
by Alissa Cooper Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

https://www.ianacg.org/icg-completes-its-work-and-awaits-conclusion-of-ccwg… --- ICG Completes its Work and Awaits Conclusion of CCWG on Enhancing ICANN Accountability IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal: https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/IANA-transition-proposal-v9.pdf The IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group has finalized the IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal with the exception of one outstanding item. The names portion of the proposal is conditioned on ICANN-level accountability mechanisms currently under development in the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability (CCWG). Before sending this proposal to the NTIA via the ICANN Board, the ICG will secure confirmation from the CWG that its accountability requirements have been met. The ICG would like to thank all those who submitted public comments during the ICG’s public comment period. The ICG discussed this input and incorporated it into the current proposal as appropriate. As a result, matters relating to the dependency between the CWG and the CCWG, the Post-Transition IANA, the Root Zone Maintainer, the jurisdiction of ICANN, intellectual property related to IANA, and conformance with the NTIA criteria, among other matters, have been clarified. The numbers and protocol parameters portions of the proposal are complete, ready for implementation, and have no dependencies on the work of the CCWG or other remaining processes. Preparation for implementation of the numbers and protocol parameters proposals is underway and can continue without waiting for the CCWG to complete its work.

2 1

Fwd: Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC
by Jordan Carter Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

As ever, all of you are welcome to join the call in around 14 hours. best Jordan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jordan Carter <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> Date: 30 October 2015 at 17:06 Subject: Pls Read - Agenda for Meeting - WP1 on Fri 30 October at 18h UTC To: "wp1(a)icann.org" <wp1(a)icann.org> Hi all Our call is on Friday from 18h UTC, and may last up to two hours. The proposed agenda items are as follows. *PLEASE READ THIS AGENDA CAREFULLY* as it sets out how I propose we run the meeting and the questions I propose we aim to answer. *1. Review of Agenda* *2. Decision-making in the Community Mechanism* *This agenda item should look at decision-making, and seeing where the WP sits with key issues raised in the "Dublin Approach".* *To prepare for this item I suggest reading the following papers:* *- Community Decision-Making: The Dublin Approach Working Paper* *- Public Comment Analysis - Voting in the community mechanism* *If you have time, also have a look at the staff analysis of public comments - the "Model" and "Voting-Forum" tabs in particular.* *Papers attached or linked below. I have not updated the Dublin Approach paper, but kept the very valuable comments, and moved Robin's added issues into separate rows in the Issues Table.* *My suggestion is that we deal with the following specific questions, as they are the key changes in the model compared with what we presented in the Second Draft Proposal. We should for each question identify whether we have a consensus on them or whether we don't -- so we can advise the full CCWG of WP1's views.* *a) Do we support the decision-making model (by consensus) replacing the voting approach?* *b) Do we support only one view being expressed by each SO or AC?* *c) Do we support an equal say for each participating SO or AC?* *We also need to address the following:* *d) In our Third Draft Proposal, which SOs and ACs do we propose should be participating? that is, do we respect the SSAC's desire not to, and do we take a view re RSSAC?* *e) Based on our answer to d), do we need to make any changes to the numbers in the decision-making framework?* *3. Other Work Required by WP1* *I do not have a current list of work we need to do in the next fortnight but believe this will be clearer following next week's CCWG. I welcome staff or co-chairs' input on this at this point of the WP1 agenda, and of course suggestions from WP1 participants.* *4. Any Other Business* *Papers* I attach PDFs of the Dublin Approach paper and of the Public Comment report section on voting. The Dublin paper Google Doc is at: < https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zHZl_NvQ1WChatX8NT2Q1rQi4zQZgbrbAxrQSsH… > The full WP1 Public Comment is at: < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142506/2015-10-12-CCWG-W… > You may also find the staff analysis of Public Comments useful, which deals with voting specifically in a couple of the tabs (Model and Voting-Forum): < https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/54693137/PC2%20tool%20-%20… > cheers Jordan -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet * -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *

2 2

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting
by Phil Buckingham Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs, As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go. Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability. Thanks, Phil Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG Hello Greg, >> 6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information. With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc. We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year. If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality. I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

10 11

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Seun Ojedeji Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

Hello Brett, I think we may be talking pass each other here. What is currently being done in relation to transparency is a NEW issue under WS1 i.e things required for stewardship transition to happen. I don't agree to the rationale that need for transparency is largely dependent on what model is decided upon. Transparency is an act that should always be encouraged (within the mission of an organisation) and its a continuous effort as much as it's a very tricky topic that needs to be carefully addressed (just like human rights within ICANN). Going members route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will designator, hence its model independent. So IMO that reason just does not "draw much water". Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be appreciated as I have not found one yet. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: > Seun, > > > > It is not a new issue, transparency was always on the accountability to do > list. It was just not as considered as urgent as other issues because of > the powers inherent in the membership model. The recent change in models > was the impetus for the change, not a random desire to introduce items at > the last minute. If membership had remained the model, in my opinion, I > don’t think this would have happened. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM > *To:* Schaefer, Brett > *Cc:* James Gannon; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was > decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that > transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working > party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting > modalities/timelines are. > > That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this > last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are. > > Thanks again for your response. > > Regards > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > ------------------------------ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> > wrote: > > Seun, > > > > At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from > member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas, > including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns > being moved from WS2 up to WS1. > > > > Best, > > > > Brett > > > > *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun > Ojedeji > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM > *To:* James Gannon > *Cc:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > Hi James, > > If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall? > Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A > pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > ------------------------------ > > *Brett* *Schaefer* > > * Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy* > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org > > On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net> wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin > including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had > something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work. > > > > -James > > > > *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org> on behalf of > Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com> > *Date: *Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m. > *To: *Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > *Cc: *CCWG-Accountability Community < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> > *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > > In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Greg > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> wrote: > > All: > > > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on > improving transparency at ICANN: > > > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ…> > > > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on > this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > >

11 20

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Eric Brunner-Williams Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

Brett, Earlier the question was asked about the composition, and by inference, the authorship, of the small group contribution on transparency reforms. Leaving aside for the moment the issues with specific details of the small group contribution, as "[you] referenced [6333] in the original draft", should we understand that you were the author, or amongst the authors, of the small group contribution? Eric On 10/28/15 4:34 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: > Eric, > > I am familiar with it, I referenced it in the original draft. > > Brett > > > > On Oct 28, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net<mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>> wrote: > > Brett, > > Please see Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code, which Greg sent to the list earlier today. See also Greg's commentary. > > I'm glad you believe there is a public interest in disclosure, your "Do you disagree ..." point, below. However, the question is how much and under what circumstances. > > Eric > > > On 10/28/15 11:26 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: > Eric, > > I’m an observer on the CCWG list, so I can’t post to it. I thought the rationale was explained in the document, but perhaps it could be clearer. > I’m not sure I follow your number references. However, my responses to your questions, perhaps not representative of the group, are below: > > > · The problem is not the accounting or records practices, it is access to them. As a member organization, the sole member would have had full access to those documents upon request. The designator does not have similar power under California law. This bullet seeks to patch that gap that arose from the switch of models. > > · The DIDP policies have not facilitated transparency to the extent that many of the community feel is needed. The vast majority of DIDP requests have been denied based on several analyses. There is insufficient means of independent appeal as you note. The recommendation is to tighten the exemptions and provide independent means for appealing DIDP denials. > > · Periodic review of any policy is a good idea I would think. If biannually is too frequent, what review cycle do you suggest? > > · Do you disagree that ICANN should make clear to the multi-stakeholder community its contacts with government officials, who it has hired to represent the organization and how much compensation they receive, and what policies it is seeking to influence? It is unclear in your e-mail. I believe, as a corporation representing the public interest, the public has an interest in knowing what ICANN is doing on its behalf. > > · As was mentioned in the Q&A portion of the Dublin meetings, the level of disclosure should be similar to that required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the U.S. There are hundreds of people who comply with this law in the U.S. I understand it can be tedious, but the number of ICANN employees likely to be affected is fairly small and the benefits in terms of transparency and community accountability would, in my opinion, be significant. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:39 PM > To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > Robin, and others "of small subgroup", > > Could you point to the deficiencies in the current accounting, records and minutes practices? Your first bullet point. > > Your second bullet point contains several items. I concur with the recommendation that something be improved in the office of the Ombudsman, its staffing, its processes, and the recourse available when its staff and processes fail, other than laughing it off. Your item #3. > > Could you share the rationals for items #1 and #2? What is the rational for biannual review of DIDP, and what are "best practices" in this context? Your item #4. > > Your third bullet point #3 (and the emboldened duplicate) starts out non-controversially, putting domestic filings where the unfamiliar are likelier to find them. But then the scope of disclosure broadens beyond lobbying to all individuals, and all "government officials". > > As a practical matter, how many members of staff do you all envision being allowed to interact with public employees? As the scope is not limited to employees, but extends to "representatives", how far do you all envision the duty of record and disclose to extend? If two people speak about addresses or protocol parameters or names, and one is an employee of some public agency, and the other an employee of ICANN, or a "representative", does that necessarily fall within the duty to record and disclose? > > Thanks in advance, > Eric > > > > On 10/27/15 12:00 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > All: > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on improving transparency at ICANN: > > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ…>https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > > >

1 0

On Stress Test 18
by arun.sukumar＠orfonline.org Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

CCWGers, plugging here a post I wrote on discussions around Stress Test 18. http://blogs.cfr.org/cyber/2015/10/27/governments-v-icann-the-last-battle-b… Thoughts welcome! Best, Arun Sent from my iPad Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com/ Ph: +91-9871943272

20 35

FW: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Paul Rosenzweig Oct. 29, 2015

Oct. 29, 2015

Posting to the list for transparency in the conversation P Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key From: Schaefer, Brett [mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:26 PM To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net>; Robin Gross (robin(a)ipjustice.org) <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Cc: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>; Tamir Israel <tisrael(a)cippic.ca>; Padmini <pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com>; Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net>; Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org>; Jyoti <jyoti(a)cis-india.org>; Pranesh Prakash <pranesh(a)cis-india.org>; Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>; kdrazek(a)verisign.com; Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>; jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz; James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net>; Wilson, Christopher <cwilson(a)21cf.com>; Matthew Shears (mshears(a)cdt.org) <mshears(a)cdt.org>; Lane, Rick <RLane(a)21cf.com>; Michael Karanicolas <michael(a)law-democracy.org>; Karel Douglas <douglaskarel(a)gmail.com> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG Eric, I'm an observer on the CCWG list, so I can't post to it. I thought the rationale was explained in the document, but perhaps it could be clearer. I'm not sure I follow your number references. However, my responses to your questions, perhaps not representative of the group, are below: * The problem is not the accounting or records practices, it is access to them. As a member organization, the sole member would have had full access to those documents upon request. The designator does not have similar power under California law. This bullet seeks to patch that gap that arose from the switch of models. * The DIDP policies have not facilitated transparency to the extent that many of the community feel is needed. The vast majority of DIDP requests have been denied based on several analyses. There is insufficient means of independent appeal as you note. The recommendation is to tighten the exemptions and provide independent means for appealing DIDP denials. * Periodic review of any policy is a good idea I would think. If biannually is too frequent, what review cycle do you suggest? * Do you disagree that ICANN should make clear to the multi-stakeholder community its contacts with government officials, who it has hired to represent the organization and how much compensation they receive, and what policies it is seeking to influence? It is unclear in your e-mail. I believe, as a corporation representing the public interest, the public has an interest in knowing what ICANN is doing on its behalf. * As was mentioned in the Q&A portion of the Dublin meetings, the level of disclosure should be similar to that required under the Foreign Agents Registration Act in the U.S. There are hundreds of people who comply with this law in the U.S. I understand it can be tedious, but the number of ICANN employees likely to be affected is fairly small and the benefits in terms of transparency and community accountability would, in my opinion, be significant. Best, Brett From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Eric Brunner-Williams Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:39 PM To: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG Robin, and others "of small subgroup", Could you point to the deficiencies in the current accounting, records and minutes practices? Your first bullet point. Your second bullet point contains several items. I concur with the recommendation that something be improved in the office of the Ombudsman, its staffing, its processes, and the recourse available when its staff and processes fail, other than laughing it off. Your item #3. Could you share the rationals for items #1 and #2? What is the rational for biannual review of DIDP, and what are "best practices" in this context? Your item #4. Your third bullet point #3 (and the emboldened duplicate) starts out non-controversially, putting domestic filings where the unfamiliar are likelier to find them. But then the scope of disclosure broadens beyond lobbying to all individuals, and all "government officials". As a practical matter, how many members of staff do you all envision being allowed to interact with public employees? As the scope is not limited to employees, but extends to "representatives", how far do you all envision the duty of record and disclose to extend? If two people speak about addresses or protocol parameters or names, and one is an employee of some public agency, and the other an employee of ICANN, or a "representative", does that necessarily fall within the duty to record and disclose? Thanks in advance, Eric On 10/27/15 12:00 PM, Robin Gross wrote: All: Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on improving transparency at ICANN: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJn Nvc/edit?pli=1# <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ nNvc/edit?pli=1> The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! Thanks, Robin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

3 2

Fwd: Re: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Eric Brunner-Williams Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

resending to the archived accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org mailing list. -e -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:53:09 -0700 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org>, Robin Gross (robin(a)ipjustice.org) <robin(a)ipjustice.org> CC: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii(a)gmail.com>, Tamir Israel <tisrael(a)cippic.ca>, Padmini <pdmnbaruah(a)gmail.com>, Edward Morris <egmorris1(a)toast.net>, Jyoti <jyoti(a)cis-india.org>, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh(a)cis-india.org>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig(a)redbranchconsulting.com>, kdrazek(a)verisign.com <kdrazek(a)verisign.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr(a)neustar.biz>, jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz <jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz>, James Gannon <james(a)cyberinvasion.net>, Wilson, Christopher <cwilson(a)21cf.com>, Matthew Shears (mshears(a)cdt.org) <mshears(a)cdt.org>, Lane, Rick <RLane(a)21cf.com>, Michael Karanicolas <michael(a)law-democracy.org>, Karel Douglas <douglaskarel(a)gmail.com> Brett, Please see Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code, which Greg sent to the list earlier today. See also Greg's commentary. I'm glad you believe there is a public interest in disclosure, your "Do you disagree ..." point, below. However, the question is how much and under what circumstances. Eric On 10/28/15 11:26 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: > > Eric, > > I’m an observer on the CCWG list, so I can’t post to it. I thought the > rationale was explained in the document, but perhaps it could be clearer. > > I’m not sure I follow your number references. However, my responses to > your questions, perhaps not representative of the group, are below: > > ·The problem is not the accounting or records practices, it is access > to them. As a member organization, the sole member would have had full > access to those documents upon request. The designator does not have > similar power under California law. This bullet seeks to patch that > gap that arose from the switch of models. > > ·The DIDP policies have not facilitated transparency to the extent > that many of the community feel is needed. The vast majority of DIDP > requests have been denied based on several analyses. There is > insufficient means of independent appeal as you note. The > recommendation is to tighten the exemptions and provide independent > means for appealing DIDP denials. > > ·Periodic review of any policy is a good idea I would think. If > biannually is too frequent, what review cycle do you suggest? > > ·Do you disagree that ICANN should make clear to the multi-stakeholder > community its contacts with government officials, who it has hired to > represent the organization and how much compensation they receive, and > what policies it is seeking to influence? It is unclear in your > e-mail. I believe, as a corporation representing the public interest, > the public has an interest in knowing what ICANN is doing on its behalf. > > ·As was mentioned in the Q&A portion of the Dublin meetings, the level > of disclosure should be similar to that required under the Foreign > Agents Registration Act in the U.S. There are hundreds of people who > comply with this law in the U.S. I understand it can be tedious, but > the number of ICANN employees likely to be affected is fairly small > and the benefits in terms of transparency and community accountability > would, in my opinion, be significant. > > Best, > > Brett > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > BrettSchaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National > Security and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org <http://heritage.org/> > > *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org > [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf > Of *Eric Brunner-Williams > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:39 PM > *To:* accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org > *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > Robin, and others "of small subgroup", > > Could you point to the deficiencies in the current accounting, records > and minutes practices? Your first bullet point. > > Your second bullet point contains several items. I concur with the > recommendation that something be improved in the office of the > Ombudsman, its staffing, its processes, and the recourse available > when its staff and processes fail, other than laughing it off. Your > item #3. > > Could you share the rationals for items #1 and #2? What is the > rational for biannual review of DIDP, and what are "best practices" in > this context? Your item #4. > > Your third bullet point #3 (and the emboldened duplicate) starts out > non-controversially, putting domestic filings where the unfamiliar are > likelier to find them. But then the scope of disclosure broadens > beyond lobbying to all individuals, and all "government officials". > > As a practical matter, how many members of staff do you all envision > being allowed to interact with public employees? As the scope is not > limited to employees, but extends to "representatives", how far do you > all envision the duty of record and disclose to extend? If two people > speak about addresses or protocol parameters or names, and one is an > employee of some public agency, and the other an employee of ICANN, or > a "representative", does that necessarily fall within the duty to > record and disclose? > > Thanks in advance, > Eric > > > > On 10/27/15 12:00 PM, Robin Gross wrote: > > All: > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work > on improving transparency at ICANN: > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants > focusing on this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > Thanks, > > Robin > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org > <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community >

1 0

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
by Greg Shatan Oct. 28, 2015

Oct. 28, 2015

I didn't say it was all of WS2; I said that if we don't trust WS2 to deliver, then we need to bring it all into WS1. Do you think that WS2 is a mirage? And I didn't say that we "just need to get this done." I'm all for targeted addition of 6333 rights, and there are quite a number of other areas in our proposal where we still have open points, and I'm not saying let's just get this done in those areas either. As for being tired and exhausted, that's not my issue, either -- I spent 8 years at a law firm where the average billable hours were over 2800 hours a year, and where the top biller had close to 4000 hours (and he did it in 6 days a week, because he was Jewish and observant). That's exhausting. This is a piece of cake. Regardless, I stand by my position that statutory equivalency aside, the rest of this should stay in WS2. Gerg On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 6:06 PM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: > Greg, > > This is hardly bringing all of WS2 into WS1. I know people are tired, > exhausted by this process, but the view that we "just need to get this > done" is a recipe for regret later in my opinion. > > Brett > > > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097 > heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> > > On Oct 28, 2015, at 5:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>> wrote: > > Brett, > > The issue of "final authority" in the comparison of member and designator > is not monolithic and in many cases not far different under either model. > > I think significant changes to DIDP policy and to lobbying disclosure > policy, each with numerous subparts with new concepts, and a reach that may > go well beyond the stated subject matter (e.g., contacts with all > government officials starts to look like law enforcement contact > disclosure, which should be a topic unto itself), amounts to a trainload, > or at least several boxcars. > > I have concerns with process, timing and substance. Frankly, my concerns > on substance are probably the most limited (though not insignificant within > those limitations). I am more concerned about getting this done, and > burying the limited but necessary need for 6333-type disclosure (and > perhaps other statutory disclosure, as Rosemary pointed out) in a big > multipart package. > > I think there is quite a bit of heavy lifting here, and a few radical > points. We should give this the breathing room it deserves and save the > negotiation and discussion of this for WS2. Or let's just blow up all of > WS2 and bring it in to WS1. We should not be too greedy in WS1 -- "Pigs get > fat, but hogs get slaughtered." > > BTW, I never said I was opposed to it because it was "new." I'm not some > sort of accountability Luddite. But it is a significant chunk of work > beyond what is necessary now, even in light of the shift in models. > > As to your question in your follow-up email, I'm saying that moving the > entire subject of transparency into WS1 signals a failure to believe that > WS2 is real and can be relied on. If I'm a fool to believe in WS2, then we > have bigger issues than where to deal with broad transparency reforms in > our workflow. > > Greg > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Schaefer, Brett < > Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: > Greg, > > I disagree. The question of where final authority rests is fundamental. > > I also disagree with your characterization of this as a trainload of new > reforms. It is an important clarification of an existing policy, DIDP, and > incorporation of a well established disclosure standard. > > This is not heavy lifting or radical. It seems that your sole case for not > doing it is that it is "new". It is not. It was sidelined last December on > part based on the model we were considering. This would have been a much > more live issue absent membership. > > Also, designator is new. Should we not consider that either? > > Best, > > Brett > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> > > __________ > > On Oct 28, 2015, at 4:51 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Brett, > > I disagree with this as a justification for bringing in a trainload of new > transparency demands. > > If the Community wants to spill the Board because it is refusing to accept > the exercise of a specific reserved power, that is all the justification we > need to spill the Board, or as many Board members as needed to successfully > exercise the power. There's no need to build a case beyond that. > > You are also vastly overstating the "reversal" -- the spill/recall rights > are statutorily identical under the Designator model, and the bylaw rights > are functionally identical. Only the budget/op plan rights are diminished > from an enforcement and "fiduciary duty" perspective. > > Finally, the most rapid recourse under EITHER model is to spill the > Board. Anybody who thinks that litigation will provide "rapid recourse" > hasn't been involved in litigation; under our circumstances, litigation as > a form of "rapid recourse" is even more unlikely than for a typical > litigant. > > Greg > > Greg > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Schaefer, Brett < > Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto: > Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> wrote: > Greg, > > I agree on the specifics of the right of inspection, but I think you are > overlooking the broader enforcement issue. > > Under the membership model, final authority for various power resided in > the member, not the Board. > > The designator reverses that authority – the power now remains with the > Board, not the designator. Under the designator, as we heard repeatedly > last week, the most rapid means of recourse is to spill the Board or remove > a director. To do that in a responsible way, you need justification. That > requires more robust access to information, ICANN documents, etc. to build > a case. > > In my mind, greater transparency is instrumental if the designator is to > avail itself of its far more limited power. > > Best, > > Brett > > > > From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com><mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com>>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 4:01 PM > To: Seun Ojedeji > Cc: Schaefer, Brett; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>> > > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > There seems to be an attempt at severe "mission creep" (or in this case, > "mission leap") taking place here. > > When we moved from "member" to "designator" as our reference model, we > gave up the statutory right of inspection under Section 6333 of the > California Corporations Code. In order to bridge the gap between "member" > and "designator," we discussed trying to give the Sole Designator > essentially the same rights that the Sole Member would have had under > Section 6333. The member's rights under 6333 are actually quite limited. > This was not intended to move all transparency issues from WS2 to WS1. Yet > it seems that there's a move by a "small subgroup" to try and take this > narrow opening and wedge an entire transparency wishlist into Work Stream > 1. This urge to overreach should be resisted by the CCWG, and even by the > small subgroup. > > Section 6333 reads as follows: > > 6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings > of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be > open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any > member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to > such person's interests as a member. > > We should strive to give the Designator similar rights in WS1 and nothing > more. Widespread transparency "reforms" are well beyond the scope of WS1 > or the time we have on our timeline to debate and consider each of the > various proposals embodied in the small subgroup's document. Rather than > using that document as a starting point, I suggest we park that document > for use in WS2, and use Section 6333 as our starting point. > > Key points of Section 6333: > > 1. It is a right exercised only by a member. In our prior model, it > would have been a right exercised only by the Sole Member. Now, it should > be a right exercised only by the Sole Designator > 2. It is limited to particular types of materials: > > * "accounting books and records" > * "minutes of proceedings of the members" > * "minutes of proceedings of ... the board" > * "minutes of proceedings of ... committees of the board" > > 1. It is a right that can only be exercised "for a purpose reasonably > related to" the member's interests "as a member." > 2. It requires the member to activate the right by making a "written > demand on the corporation" to initiate the right; the corporation is not > obligated under 6333 to disclose anything on its own initiative or due to > its mere existence as a corporation. > 3. It is a right to "inspection." > Terms like "accounting books and records" and "open to inspection," among > others, have fairly specific legal meanings in the context of 6333. Our > counsel can enlighten us on the specifics, but it is important to be aware > that these are limited terms. > > Our job should be to translate 6333 into the Bylaws as faithfully as > possible. No more, no less. I hesitate to suggest any flexibility, lest > there be another attempt to pass a camel through the eye of a needle. > > A final note -- Section 6336 provides a specific enforcement right if a > corporation refuses a "lawful demand" under Section 6333. This should also > be imported into the Bylaws. > > Greg > > > On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:24 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com > <mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto: > seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>>> wrote: > > Hello Brett, > > I think we may be talking pass each other here. What is currently being > done in relation to transparency is a NEW issue under WS1 i.e things > required for stewardship transition to happen. > > I don't agree to the rationale that need for transparency is largely > dependent on what model is decided upon. Transparency is an act that should > always be encouraged (within the mission of an organisation) and its a > continuous effort as much as it's a very tricky topic that needs to be > carefully addressed (just like human rights within ICANN). Going members > route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will > designator, hence its model independent. So IMO that reason just does not > "draw much water". > > Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be > appreciated as I have not found one yet. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org > <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org > <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> wrote: > Seun, > > It is not a new issue, transparency was always on the accountability to do > list. It was just not as considered as urgent as other issues because of > the powers inherent in the membership model. The recent change in models > was the impetus for the change, not a random desire to introduce items at > the last minute. If membership had remained the model, in my opinion, I > don’t think this would have happened. > > Best, > > Brett > > From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto: > seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com><mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com<mailto: > seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com>>] > Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM > To: Schaefer, Brett > Cc: James Gannon; accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>> > Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was > decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that > transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working > party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting > modalities/timelines are. > > That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this > last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are. > > Thanks again for your response. > > Regards > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097><tel:202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097>> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> > On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org > <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org><mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org > <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>>> wrote: > Seun, > > At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from > member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas, > including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns > being moved from WS2 up to WS1. > > Best, > > Brett > > From: accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>> [mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>>] On Behalf Of Seun > Ojedeji > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM > To: James Gannon > Cc: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > > Hi James, > > If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall? > Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A > pointer will be appreciated. > > Regards > > Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 > Kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097><tel:202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097>> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> > On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james(a)cyberinvasion.net<mailto: > james(a)cyberinvasion.net><mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net<mailto: > james(a)cyberinvasion.net>>> wrote: > Hi Greg, > > A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin > including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had > something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work. > > -James > > > ________________________________ > Brett Schaefer > Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs > Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security > and Foreign Policy > The Heritage Foundation > 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE > Washington, DC 20002 > 202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097><tel:202-608-6097<tel:202-608-6097>> > heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/> > From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org>>> on behalf of Greg > Shatan <gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com><mailto: > gregshatanipc(a)gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>>> > Date: Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m. > To: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org><mailto: > robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>> > Cc: CCWG-Accountability Community < > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org><mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto: > accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org>>> > Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG > > In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup? > > Thanks! > > Greg > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org<mailto: > robin(a)ipjustice.org><mailto:robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>> > wrote: > All: > > Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on > improving transparency at ICANN: > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > < > https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJ… > > > > The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on > this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome! > > Thanks, > Robin > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org><mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org><mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > _______________________________________________ > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org><mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<mailto: > Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > > >

1 0