[CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)

[Greg Shatan]

I'll restate my position that we should only replicate the rights of the
member in the hands of the designator in WS1.  We can consider expanding
that to SO/ACs in WS2; i think there will be more variable and nuance and
we'll need more time to work things through.

Inspection is not so simple as Seun makes it seem.  I don't want to
overcomplicate it either, but there will be a number of points that will
need to be addressed in terms of scope of request, purpose of request,
scope of response, how inspection will be arranged, confidentiality,
privilege, completeness,  etc.

Creating a DIDP appeals process (other than RfR) will also have its issues
that need to be worked through.  I think this is better left to WS2; i
don't think the change from member to designator fundamentally affects this.


I can already see that issues we have on our plate are not getting the
attention they need to close them off, and that people are expressing
surprise at various aspects of the proposal.  I think we need to limit
ourselves to the necessities in WS1, and also make darn sure that WS2 is a
reality (e.g., by the bylaw that Mathieu points out).

I think one reason you are not seeing more responses to this is that people
are maxed out and don't even want to touch another issue -- so silence in
this case does not indicate assent, it indicates burnout.  Maybe if this
were a corporate transaction or a legislative session, that would make this
the ideal time to push something through with a minimum of attention given
to it.  I think that we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little
better than corporate adversaries or politicians, so I would caution
against using 11th hour fatigue as a platform.

Greg

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
> wrote:

> Jordan,
>
>
>
> I feel like we are going around in circles.
>
>
>
> We have all agreed that the move from member to designators creates gaps
> in transparency and accountability that need to be addressed.
>
> Everyone agrees on the right of inspection issue (although some discussion
> continues on whether that right is only to the sole designator or also to
> the individual SOs and ACs).
>
>
>
> A significant number of participants have expressed the view that
> additional transparency issues need to be moved up considering that
> enforcement under the designator relies predominantly on removing
> directors.
>
>
>
> Others disagree and say that it was agreed months ago that this should be
> WS2.
>
>
>
> The response is that things have changed – the model was membership, it
> now is designator. That under this new model, it is even more important
> that individuals, businesses, and the SOs and ACs have access to
> information as a counterbalance and that if this had been known from the
> start that people would have insisted that transparency be WS1.
>
>
>
> There seems to be no real issue with pursuing these matters on substance,
> just a concern about the timeline.
>
>
>
> Steve offered one compromise. I offered another. Both are aimed at
> limiting the immediate work load to allow them to fit the timeline.
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 PM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett
> *Cc:* Burr, Becky; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek at verisign.com; Alan Greenberg;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
> Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
>
>
>
> The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point
> about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs.
>
>
>
> The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the
> inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would
> not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was
> the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along
> with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple
> members to single members.
>
>
>
> It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than
> replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the
> community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership.
>
>
>
> For the rest, it should be WS2....
>
>
>
>
>
> cheers
>
> Jordan
>
>
>
>
>
> On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> wrote:
>
> Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures
> in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more
> transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to
> WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *Brett* *Schaefer*
>
> * 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
>
> ------------------------------
> Brett Schaefer
> 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
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
>
>
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek at verisign.com; Alan
> Greenberg
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
> Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
>
>
>
> Agree, but our time constraints are significant
>
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM
> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>, Steve DelBianco <
> sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek at verisign.com>, Alan
> Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
> Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
>
>
>
> Becky,
>
>
>
> I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from
> membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I
> have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our
> time constraints.
>
>
>
> 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
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=ns0EKaZMgPYtzk_eoqXWtkY71iI_xOFXK_CY5TLfgSY&s=2L5fXhaVij06ISnz3kqV5AkYb_p2E-QIRZmpKMBJVS0&e=>
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek at verisign.com; Alan
> Greenberg
> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
> Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
>
>
>
> Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
>
>
>
>
>
> J. Beckwith Burr
>
> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM
> *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <
> kdrazek at verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
> Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
>
>
>
> That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition
> to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the
> individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN
> to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the
> expenditures for that purpose.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ*
>
>
> +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
> Email: jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
>
> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>
>
> *A better world through a better Internet *
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151102/130e4a79/attachment.html>