[CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Wed Oct 28 20:20:56 UTC 2015

Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 28 Oct 2015 21:03, "James Gannon" <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
SO: With respect that is not an appropriate way to respond points I have
also raised in good faith. Everyone contributes to this process one way or
the other. It's interests that usually differs.

Regards

> -James
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
> Date: Wednesday 28 October 2015 at 7:52 p.m.
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <
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> 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
>>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
>>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
>>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
>>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
>>
>> Link to my PGP Key
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> 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#
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/fd0b1fcb/attachment.html>