[CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

[Greg Shatan]

My response to Brett's email serves as a response here as well.

On Wed, Oct 28, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Moving to a designator model also entails reliance on "spilling the board"
> as the enforcement mechanism.  Therefore, the community is much more
> dependent upon knowing what is going on with the board decision making
> process than we were under a membership model.  The switch from membership
> to designator creates the need for enhanced transparency in WS1 due to
> heightened dependency on transparency in a designator model.  Membership
> had some transparency guarantees and also lack of transparency dependencies
> compared to designator model, the switch in models can't really happen
> without transparency improvements in WS1.
>
> Thanks,
> Robin
>
> On Oct 28, 2015, at 1:06 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151028/2d2219af/attachment.html>