[CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Wed Oct 28 20:03:15 UTC 2015

Seun,
The co-chairs raised the transparency work needed in WS1 issue as we moved to designator in multiple CCWG meetings in Dublin, I suggest any issues be raised with them if you disagree with their assessment.

The group working on transparency was ad-hoc to get some initial language for the CCWG to start working on and not a formal work party so no terms of reference or charter exist for this group who did some initial drafting in order to assist the CCWG in their work in this area, the group was comprised of people who had extensive backgrounds and experience in the issues at hand.

If you would like to discard the work that has been done in good faith please feel free to, we have a lot of work to get done and those of us who are trying to assist will keep doing so.

-James

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday 28 October 2015 at 7:52 p.m.
To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Hello Paul,

I am not convinced, I believe it's processes and abiding by them that determines level of transparency. DIDP is a process(a policy) which can be implemented and made effective irrespective of model.

Again because members have statutory rights will in this context not imply that they could mandate board to release information that existing process/policy/contracts does not permit them to do. At best both parties will end up in court to get a last resort. Which could be an unhealthy scenario.

That said, don't get me wrong, I am sure not against transparency but I am against the rationale that is presented and I am concerned about whether it can be adequately addressed within the WS1 timeframe.

Regards
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 28 Oct 2015 20:36, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote:
On the contrary Seun, since the membership model carried with it certain inherent statutory transparency rights under law, the change to the designator model necessitates that we revisit whether the transparency that would inhere with the designator model is adequate.  When you say that “going members route would not necessarily increase/reduce transparency neither will designator” you are, as a matter of law, incorrect.  I perceive the DIDP effort as an attempt to assure by way of process change or bylaw amendment that the designator has adequate transparency equivalent to the member model.   If it did not that would be for some a reason to reject the designator

Paul

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660>
M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650>
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739>
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com<mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:24 PM
To: Brett Schaefer <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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.

________________________________
BrettSchaefer
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/>
On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto: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> [mailto: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<mailto: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.

________________________________
BrettSchaefer
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/>
On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net<mailto: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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m.
To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
Cc: CCWG-Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20151028/0dea8961/attachment.html>