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: