<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
On 28 Oct 2015 21:03, "James Gannon" <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">> -James<br>
><br>
> From: <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Seun Ojedeji <<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>><br>
> Date: Wednesday 28 October 2015 at 7:52 p.m.<br>
> To: Paul Rosenzweig <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>><br>
> Cc: "<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>" <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
><br>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br>
><br>
> Hello Paul,<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> Regards<br>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
><br>
> On 28 Oct 2015 20:36, "Paul Rosenzweig" <<a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> 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<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Paul<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Paul Rosenzweig<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com">paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<br>
>><br>
>> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<br>
>><br>
>> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<br>
>><br>
>> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066<br>
>><br>
>> Link to my PGP Key<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>] <br>
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 3:24 PM<br>
>> To: Brett Schaefer <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>><br>
>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br>
>><br>
>> <br>
>><br>
>> Hello Brett,<br>
>><br>
>> 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.<br>
>><br>
>> 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".<br>
>><br>
>> Again a transcript, TOR, and timeline pointers for these new item would be appreciated as I have not found one yet.<br>
>><br>
>> Regards<br>
>><br>
>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
>><br>
>> On 28 Oct 2015 20:03, "Schaefer, Brett" <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Seun,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Best,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Brett<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:<a href="mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com">seun.ojedeji@gmail.com</a>] <br>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 2:53 PM<br>
>>> To: Schaefer, Brett<br>
>>> Cc: James Gannon; <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks again for your response.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards<br>
>>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>><br>
>>> BrettSchaefer<br>
>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
>>> The Heritage Foundation<br>
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
>>> Washington, DC 20002<br>
>>> 202-608-6097<br>
>>> <a href="http://heritage.org">heritage.org</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 28 Oct 2015 19:30, "Schaefer, Brett" <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Seun,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Best,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Brett<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> From: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji<br>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 3:57 PM<br>
>>> To: James Gannon<br>
>>> Cc: <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi James,<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Regards<br>
>>><br>
>>> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
>>> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.<br>
>>><br>
>>> ________________________________<br>
>>><br>
>>> BrettSchaefer<br>
>>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>
>>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>
>>> The Heritage Foundation<br>
>>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
>>> Washington, DC 20002<br>
>>> 202-608-6097<br>
>>> <a href="http://heritage.org">heritage.org</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> On 27 Oct 2015 20:16, "James Gannon" <<a href="mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net">james@cyberinvasion.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hi Greg,<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> -James<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> From: <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> on behalf of Greg Shatan <<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>><br>
>>> Date: Tuesday 27 October 2015 at 7:09 p.m.<br>
>>> To: Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>><br>
>>> Cc: CCWG-Accountability Community <<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> In the interests of transparency, who is in the small subgroup?<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks!<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Greg<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Robin Gross <<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> All:<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Here is a link to a document intended to contribute to CCWG's work on improving transparency at ICANN:<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJnNvc/edit?pli=1#">https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJnNvc/edit?pli=1#</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> The doc is the creation of small subgroup of CCWG participants focusing on this transparency issue. Feedback is most welcome!<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> Thanks,<br>
>>><br>
>>> Robin<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></p>