Hi all, Thanks very much for circulating. I am of the opinion that the proposed implementation guidance for open contracting and government engagement would severely undercut the substance of these two recommendations. While I am mindful of the need to secure Board support, there is little point in doing so if our efforts to do so nullify the potential of the Recommendations to have any sort of meaningful impact. Regarding open contracting, the proposed language sets an incredibly weak standard of implementation, such that it robs the recommendation of its practical value in terms of accountability over ICANN’s spending. It would be the weakest open contracting system that I am aware of by a wide margin, and only a slight improvement on ICANN’s current practice. I leave it to the community to determine whether there is, indeed, a need to develop meaningful accountability over ICANN’s spending. But if such a need exists, it will not be addressed by the current language. I would suggest setting the threshold at $100,000, which I feel is an appropriate compromise position, given ICANN's situation and status. This is an order of magnitude higher than governmental contracting systems, which typically disclose anything over $10,000. However, it is in line with the practice at comparable international institutions like the World Bank. In the alternative, and given that there is apprehension of the impacts of transparency in the contracting process, I would suggest that the amount of $500,000 be kept, but that the implementation guidance make clear that the current system should be viewed as a starting point, with a general goal of improving transparency in the system over time. Regarding the implementation guidance on government engagement, I start by noting that the reference to the DIDP exception for international relations is inappropriate, given that the recommendation does not call for disclosure of the substance of materials provided to governments beyond their general theme. The inclusion of the DIDP reference is harmful as it could be read as an expansion of the DIDP exception to include such incidental information as the identities of ICANN staffers engaged in governmental outreach and the amounts of expenditures related to their work. In other words, this language is not only inappropriate in this context, but could open the door to a significant regression in ICANN’s DIDP system, which is counter to what we are meant to be achieving. Given that this entire passage is unnecessary to the substance of the implementation guidance, I would recommend that it be deleted. In terms of the substance of the implementation guidance, I have suggested that, while it’s reasonable to exempt conferences and training programs, which would tend to be outside the scope of the activities this recommendation targets, extending that exclusion to meetings is problematic since this is the form that most lobbying takes. Virtually all engagement or outreach includes “meetings” of some kind. As a result, the impact of the current language would be to provide no accountability or transparency for any lobbying or political activities so long as the substance of the work is either publicly available or part of a formally published ICANN position – an enormous loophole. It’s also worth noting that the recommendation in no way prohibits ICANN from engaging in political or lobbying activities, it merely requires transparency around these activities if more that $20,000 is spent on them. I look forward to discussing this further on Sunday. Best regards, Michael Karanicolas On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Bernard Turcotte <turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> wrote:

All,

Please find below the agenda for the WS2 Panama Face to Face meeting scheduled for Sunday 24 June.

Schedule for the CCWG-Accountability-WS2 Plenary – Panama City – Sunday 24 June 2018 08:30 Local (13:30 UTC)

Room: Salon 1-3 (GAC)<https://62.schedule.icann.org/floor_maps/2821?per_page=30&with%5bfloor_map_i...>

1. 8:30 – 9:00 (13:30 – 14:00 UTC)

1.1. Coffee

1.2. Review of Agenda

1.3. Introduction, update to SOIs, reminder on standards of behavior

1.4. Administration

2. 9:00 – 10:30 (14:00 – 15:30 UTC)

2.1. Current status

2.2. Review and confirmation of Implementation Guidance

3. 10:30 – 11:00 (15:30 – 16:00 UTC)

3.1. Coffee break

4. 11:00 – 12:00 (16:00 – 17:00 UTC)

4.1. Path Forward

4.2. Official thanks

4.3. AOB

4.3.1. IOT Public Consultation Announcement

4.4. Adjournment

5. 12:00 – 13:00 (17:00 – 18:00 UTC)

5.1. Lunch

Please note that 3 of the 4 elements to be discussed under Implementation Guidance are detailed in the attached document.

We hope to have Implementation Guidance on the fourth element in time for the plenary to discuss on Sunday.

Remote participation - https://community.icann.org/x/ZCwFBQ Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability-WS2

for the Co-Chairs

Thomas, Jordan and Tijani

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community