[CCWG-ACCT] Fwd: Re: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

Eric Brunner-Williams ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Wed Oct 28 23:07:12 UTC 2015 

resending to the archived accountability-cross-community at icann.org 
mailing list.

-e


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Date: 	Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:53:09 -0700
From: 	Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
To: 	Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>, Robin Gross 
(robin at ipjustice.org) <robin at ipjustice.org>
CC: 	farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>, Tamir Israel 
<tisrael at cippic.ca>, Padmini <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>, Edward Morris 
<egmorris1 at toast.net>, Jyoti <jyoti at cis-india.org>, Pranesh Prakash 
<pranesh at cis-india.org>, Paul Rosenzweig 
<paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>, kdrazek at verisign.com 
<kdrazek at verisign.com>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, 
jordan at internetnz.net.nz <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, James Gannon 
<james at cyberinvasion.net>, Wilson, Christopher <cwilson at 21cf.com>, 
Matthew Shears (mshears at cdt.org) <mshears at cdt.org>, Lane, Rick 
<RLane at 21cf.com>, Michael Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org>, Karel 
Douglas <douglaskarel at gmail.com>



Brett,

Please see Section 6333 of the California Corporations Code, which Greg 
sent to the list earlier today. See also Greg's commentary.

I'm glad you believe there is a public interest in disclosure, your "Do 
you disagree ..." point, below. However, the question is how much and 
under what circumstances.

Eric


On 10/28/15 11:26 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
>
> Eric,
>
> I’m an observer on the CCWG list, so I can’t post to it. I thought the 
> rationale was explained in the document, but perhaps it could be clearer.
>
> I’m not sure I follow your number references. However, my responses to 
> your questions, perhaps not representative of the group, are below:
>
> ·The problem is not the accounting or records practices, it is access 
> to them. As a member organization, the sole member would have had full 
> access to those documents upon request. The designator does not have 
> similar power under California law. This bullet seeks to patch that 
> gap that arose from the switch of models.
>
> ·The DIDP policies have not facilitated transparency to the extent 
> that many of the community feel is needed. The vast majority of DIDP 
> requests have been denied based on several analyses. There is 
> insufficient means of independent appeal as you note. The 
> recommendation is to tighten the exemptions and provide independent 
> means for appealing DIDP denials.
>
> ·Periodic review of any policy is a good idea I would think. If 
> biannually is too frequent, what review cycle do you suggest?
>
> ·Do you disagree that ICANN should make clear to the multi-stakeholder 
> community its contacts with government officials, who it has hired to 
> represent the organization and how much compensation they receive, and 
> what policies it is seeking to influence? It is unclear in your 
> e-mail. I believe, as a corporation representing the public interest, 
> the public has an interest in knowing what ICANN is doing on its behalf.
>
> ·As was mentioned in the Q&A portion of the Dublin meetings, the level 
> of disclosure should be similar to that required under the Foreign 
> Agents Registration Act in the U.S. There are hundreds of people who 
> comply with this law in the U.S. I understand it can be tedious, but 
> the number of ICANN employees likely to be affected is fairly small 
> and the benefits in terms of transparency and community accountability 
> would, in my opinion, be significant.
>
> Best,
>
> Brett
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/>
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf 
> Of *Eric Brunner-Williams
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 28, 2015 1:39 PM
> *To:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
>
> Robin, and others "of small subgroup",
>
> Could you point to the deficiencies in the current accounting, records 
> and minutes practices? Your first bullet point.
>
> Your second bullet point contains several items. I concur with the 
> recommendation that something be improved in the office of the 
> Ombudsman, its staffing, its processes, and the recourse available 
> when its staff and processes fail, other than laughing it off. Your 
> item #3.
>
> Could you share the rationals for items #1 and #2? What is the 
> rational for biannual review of DIDP, and what are "best practices" in 
> this context? Your item #4.
>
> Your third bullet point #3 (and the emboldened duplicate) starts out 
> non-controversially, putting domestic filings where the unfamiliar are 
> likelier to find them. But then the scope of disclosure broadens 
> beyond lobbying to all individuals, and all "government officials".
>
> As a practical matter, how many members of staff do you all envision 
> being allowed to interact with public employees? As the scope is not 
> limited to employees, but extends to "representatives", how far do you 
> all envision the duty of record and disclose to extend? If two people 
> speak about addresses or protocol parameters or names, and one is an 
> employee of some public agency, and the other an employee of ICANN, or 
> a "representative", does that necessarily fall within the duty to 
> record and disclose?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric
>
>
>
> On 10/27/15 12:00 PM, Robin Gross 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
>     <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/20151028/8e80d1f0/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list