[CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

[Seun Ojedeji]

Hello Brett,

I think we may be talking pass each other here. What is currently being
done in relation to transparency is a NEW issue under WS1 i.e things
required for stewardship transition to happen.

I don't agree to the rationale that need for transparency is largely
dependent on what model is decided upon. Transparency is an act that should
always be encouraged (within the mission of an organisation) and its a
continuous effort as much as it's a very tricky topic that needs to be
carefully addressed (just like human rights within ICANN). Going members
route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will
designator, hence its model independent. So IMO that reason just does not
"draw much water".

Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be
appreciated as I have not found one yet.

Regards

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:

> Seun,
>
>
>
> It is not a new issue, transparency was always on the accountability to do
> list. It was just not as considered as urgent as other issues because of
> the powers inherent in the membership model. The recent change in models
> was the impetus for the change, not a random desire to introduce items at
> the last minute. If membership had remained the model, in my opinion, I
> don’t think this would have happened.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett
> *Cc:* James Gannon; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
>
>
>
> Thanks Brett, I may have missed that particular session where it was
> decided that additional items be introduced to WS1. A pointer to that
> transcript will be helpful and it will also be good to know what working
> party James team is called, their TOR and what their meeting
> modalities/timelines are.
>
> That said, I am concerned that the CCWG is introducing new items at this
> last minutes of WS1. It makes me wonder what our priorities are.
>
> Thanks again for your response.
>
> Regards
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> ------------------------------
> 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
>
> On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> wrote:
>
> Seun,
>
>
>
> At the CCWG meetings last week, there was agreement that the move from
> member to designator (and the lesser powers it would have in many areas,
> including the right of inspection) should result in transparency concerns
> being moved from WS2 up to WS1.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> *From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Seun
> Ojedeji
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM
> *To:* James Gannon
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
>
>
>
> Hi James,
>
> If I may ask, which of the work stream or working party does this fall?
> Will be good to know what action item of the CCWG gave birth to this. A
> pointer will be appreciated.
>
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> ------------------------------
>
> *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
>
> On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
>
>
> A number of NCSG members and others who spoke on this issue in Dublin
> including myself had started work on this during Dublin and once we had
> something that was readable we brought it to the group to continue the work.
>
>
>
> -James
>
>
>
> *From: *<accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m.
> *To: *Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> *Cc: *CCWG-Accountability Community <
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
>
>
>
> In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup?
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> Greg
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> 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_pplpJnNvc/edit?pli=1#
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJnNvc/edit?pli=1>
>
>
>
> 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151028/21ff30b4/attachment.html>