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

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>
Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM
To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
Cc: Accountability Community <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.