resending to the archived accountability-cross-community@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@abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>, Robin Gross (robin@ipjustice.org) <robin@ipjustice.org> CC: farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com>, Tamir Israel <tisrael@cippic.ca>, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net>, Jyoti <jyoti@cis-india.org>, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh@cis-india.org>, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>, kdrazek@verisign.com <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, jordan@internetnz.net.nz <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net>, Wilson, Christopher <cwilson@21cf.com>, Matthew Shears (mshears@cdt.org) <mshears@cdt.org>, Lane, Rick <RLane@21cf.com>, Michael Karanicolas <michael@law-democracy.org>, Karel Douglas <douglaskarel@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@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...
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@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community