Becky, I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints. 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.