[CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 20:06:36 UTC 2015


Paul,

"Equivalency" to the member rights under Section 6333 is a fair position.
That's what I've put forth in my email a few minutes ago.

This Contribution goes far beyond equivalency and should be set aside until
WS2.

Greg

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
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
> <paul.rosenzweigesq at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>
> 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]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:24 PM
> *To:* Brett Schaefer <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
>
> *Cc:* 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>
> 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
> AffairsMargaret 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
> AffairsMargaret 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151028/5efdf60c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list