[CCWG-ACCT] WS2 Transparency Report: Draft 2

[Wilson, Christopher]

Thanks for the feedback, Christopher.

Regarding your comments about "relations with governments," the proactive disclosure recommendations concerning ICANN interactions with governments is intended to cover engagements that are not covered by U.S. lobbying disclosure law.  Indeed, these disclosures are meant to be in addition to the U.S. federal lobbying activity ICANN currently discloses and it should not be implied that these additional interactions are necessarily "lobbying."  Apologies for any confusion.  The goal is to provide additional clarity and insight into ICANN's interactions with the U.S. government that don't qualify as "lobbying" in the U.S. as well as interactions with non-U.S. governments that are not otherwise disclosed.  The disclosure recommendations are not meant to encompass ICANN-GAC engagement on policy matters being discussed within the ICANN PDP WGs.  Those interactions are generally documented and available for review by the community ("otherwise disclosed," but if I am wrong I stand to be corrected).   If greater clarity is needed in this regard, I am open to word-smithing, but I don't think a wholesale deletion of the phrase below is necessary.

As for FN 2, I am not beholden to keeping it, but it does serve as a reminder as to why greater transparency in this regard is desired by the community (and goes to the motivation from WS 1 for this line of disclosure).  The merits (and results) of such interactions are not relevant to this discussion - just that interactions such as those are documented and disclosed.  Perhaps an alternative would be to provide a hypothetical scenario - e.g., ICANN undertaking an advocacy campaign at the ITU to speak to the benefits of the DNS in relation to Digital Object Architecture.

Thanks again for taking the time to read and comment.  The subgroup will be discussing the report and feedback such as yours during our call tomorrow, Dec. 15, at 1900 UTC.

Best,

Chris


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Christopher Wilkinson
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 3:05 PM
To: Michael Karanicolas
Cc: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] WS2 Transparency Report: Draft 2
Importance: High

Good evening:

Thankyou. I have read the report and have a few comments.

The draft report has much to recommend it, although the full implementation of all the recommendations could give rise to uncertainties and ambiguities. Also, the costs of implementation have not been addressed. Monitoring and Evaluation of transparency (among other desirable objectives) requires staff time and other resources. A proportionate balance has to be found; if this report does not help to find that balance, then that responsibility will inevitably pass to the budgetary procedure and to the ICANN Board. Thus the recommendations would be necessarily qualified by considerations outside the policy described by the report. Is that intended?

The report does not make clear whether 'ICANN' refers only to the Board and the executive staff, or whether it addresses the transparency of the ICANN community as a whole. Since the Transition has given rise to a significant transfer of power and policy to the Empowered Community, it is worth asking whether and to what extent the desired transparency policy should apply to them as well.

Regarding procurement policy, the report appears to ignore the discussion that has already taken place in the SO/AC Accountability working group. ICANN has a procurement policy; it would be preferable to comment on the existing policy (in detail if necessary) rather than to proceed on the basis that ICANN does not have one.

Regarding relations with governments, the report goes too far. Large scale lobbying is one thing, and should be reported. Unfortunately it seems to be necessary in certain contexts. However the report appears to wish to discourage and report upon all formal - and informal - conversations between ICANN representatives and participants and government officials. Thus we have (twice):

"...these proactive disclosure recommendations are intended to capture any and all internal and external persons or entities informing or influencing governments on matters of public policy that are not otherwise disclosed ..."

ICANN, among others, have spent nearly two decades encouraging governments to participate as stakeholders in their own right. The Transition has reinforced that principle. As a result the GAC now has 160 plus members, and increasing numbers of government officials are indeed present throughout the community. If all those communications are to be assimilated by extension into 'lobbying' then that would be quite damaging. I am sure that some would say that here I am reading too much between the lines, but unfortunately the above recommendation is quite explicit. Please delete it.

Regarding Brazil and China, I recommend deleting footnote 2. It hardly adds to the dignity of ICANN's future relationships with those and other governments. Personally I do not share the 'angst' that has apparently been expressed (although I have only ever heard it repeated indirectly). Furthermore, if the bottom line is that Net Mundial in São Paulo should not have taken place, then that is clearly wrong.

I trust that this is helpful.

CW

PS:       For ease of future reference, I recommend numbering the paragraphs.






On 12 Dec 2016, at 20:51, Michael Karanicolas <michael at law-democracy.org<mailto:michael at law-democracy.org>> wrote:


Hi all,

In preparation for Wednesday's plenary, we're pleased to enclose a
second draft of the WS2 Transparency Subgroup report and
recommendations.

The whistleblower protection section is largely unchanged from the
last section, as is the background discussion. The DIDP has a few new
recommendations, stemming from the discussions that took place at
ICANN 57. Also, we went back to the four subthemes as originally
conceived, replacing the broader "proactive disclosure" section with
more targeted sections on "transparency of interactions with
governments" and "transparency of board deliberations". The former is
largely unchanged from the last draft, while the latter is new.

Happy reading!

Best,

Michael Karanicolas
Senior Legal Officer
Centre for Law and Democracy
<CCWG_WS2_Transp Report.Draft2.docx>_______________________________________________
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

This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20161214/2733a257/attachment-0001.html>