More thoughts on:
On 16-Aug-16 12:22, parminder wrote:
I ask you; do you agree or not that ICANN
should uphold these transparency standards that are upheld by
public bodies?
There are two complementary avenues for
pursuing what should be ICANN’s commitment to transparency, and
discussion should proceed on both fronts.
One is try to distill a scope and depth of transparency from
ICANN’s mission and vision. That includes considerations of what
concepts like “in the public good”, “in the public interest” and
“public governance” direct us (the multistakeholder community
within ICANN) to consider in the establishment of a standard of
transparency to which ICANN should aspire.
The other avenue is to identify concrete and existing examples
of a lack of transparency within the current operations of ICANN
(e.g. lobbying contracts, “service” contracts, etc.) and build a
remedial framework of transparency practice within ICANN.
Discussion should proceed on both fronts.
Sam L.