Good evening: Thankyou. I have read the report and have a few comments. The draft report has much to recommend it, although the full implementation of all the recommendations could give rise to uncertainties and ambiguities. Also, the costs of implementation have not been addressed. Monitoring and Evaluation of transparency (among other desirable objectives) requires staff time and other resources. A proportionate balance has to be found; if this report does not help to find that balance, then that responsibility will inevitably pass to the budgetary procedure and to the ICANN Board. Thus the recommendations would be necessarily qualified by considerations outside the policy described by the report. Is that intended? The report does not make clear whether 'ICANN' refers only to the Board and the executive staff, or whether it addresses the transparency of the ICANN community as a whole. Since the Transition has given rise to a significant transfer of power and policy to the Empowered Community, it is worth asking whether and to what extent the desired transparency policy should apply to them as well. Regarding procurement policy, the report appears to ignore the discussion that has already taken place in the SO/AC Accountability working group. ICANN has a procurement policy; it would be preferable to comment on the existing policy (in detail if necessary) rather than to proceed on the basis that ICANN does not have one. Regarding relations with governments, the report goes too far. Large scale lobbying is one thing, and should be reported. Unfortunately it seems to be necessary in certain contexts. However the report appears to wish to discourage and report upon all formal – and informal – conversations between ICANN representatives and participants and government officials. Thus we have (twice): “…these proactive disclosure recommendations are intended to capture any and all internal and external persons or entities informing or influencing governments on matters of public policy that are not otherwise disclosed …” ICANN, among others, have spent nearly two decades encouraging governments to participate as stakeholders in their own right. The Transition has reinforced that principle. As a result the GAC now has 160 plus members, and increasing numbers of government officials are indeed present throughout the community. If all those communications are to be assimilated by extension into 'lobbying' then that would be quite damaging. I am sure that some would say that here I am reading too much between the lines, but unfortunately the above recommendation is quite explicit. Please delete it. Regarding Brazil and China, I recommend deleting footnote 2. It hardly adds to the dignity of ICANN's future relationships with those and other governments. Personally I do not share the 'angst' that has apparently been expressed (although I have only ever heard it repeated indirectly). Furthermore, if the bottom line is that Net Mundial in São Paulo should not have taken place, then that is clearly wrong. I trust that this is helpful. CW PS: For ease of future reference, I recommend numbering the paragraphs. On 12 Dec 2016, at 20:51, Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org> wrote:
Hi all,
In preparation for Wednesday's plenary, we're pleased to enclose a second draft of the WS2 Transparency Subgroup report and recommendations.
The whistleblower protection section is largely unchanged from the last section, as is the background discussion. The DIDP has a few new recommendations, stemming from the discussions that took place at ICANN 57. Also, we went back to the four subthemes as originally conceived, replacing the broader "proactive disclosure" section with more targeted sections on "transparency of interactions with governments" and "transparency of board deliberations". The former is largely unchanged from the last draft, while the latter is new.
Happy reading!
Best,
Michael Karanicolas Senior Legal Officer Centre for Law and Democracy <CCWG_WS2_Transp Report.Draft2.docx>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community