<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Good evening:<div><br></div><div>Thankyou. I have read the report and have a few comments.</div><div><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">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 <b>costs of
implementation</b> 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?</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">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.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Regarding <b>procurement policy</b>,
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.</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">Regarding <b>relations with
governments</b>, 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):</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><b><span style="font-size: 15px; ">“…</span><font face="Times New Roman, serif" style="font-size: 15px; "><i>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 …”</i></font></b><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">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.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><font face="Times New Roman, serif">Regarding
</font><font face="Times New Roman, serif"><b>Brazil and China,</b></font><font face="Times New Roman, serif">
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.</font></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in">I trust that this is helpful.</p><div><br></div><div>CW</div><div><br></div><div>PS:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>For ease of future reference, I recommend numbering the paragraphs.</div><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in"><br>
</p><div><div>On 12 Dec 2016, at 20:51, Michael Karanicolas <<a href="mailto:michael@law-democracy.org">michael@law-democracy.org</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">Hi all,<br><br>In preparation for Wednesday's plenary, we're pleased to enclose a<br>second draft of the WS2 Transparency Subgroup report and<br>recommendations.<br><br>The whistleblower protection section is largely unchanged from the<br>last section, as is the background discussion. The DIDP has a few new<br>recommendations, stemming from the discussions that took place at<br>ICANN 57. Also, we went back to the four subthemes as originally<br>conceived, replacing the broader "proactive disclosure" section with<br>more targeted sections on "transparency of interactions with<br>governments" and "transparency of board deliberations". The former is<br>largely unchanged from the last draft, while the latter is new.<br><br>Happy reading!<br><br>Best,<br><br>Michael Karanicolas<br>Senior Legal Officer<br>Centre for Law and Democracy<br><span><CCWG_WS2_Transp Report.Draft2.docx></span>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>