[CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 22:26:03 UTC 2016


Brett,

I think the Transparency subgroup is about a good deal more than lobbying
disclosures (or non-lobbying efforts in a similar vein to lobbying or
non-US lobbying).
I agree that the lobbying disclosures made by ICANN are not sufficient to
reveal the bigger picture, and that this is one worthwhile subject for the
Transparency subgroup.

I'm not sure Marilyn was saying she was satisfied with the overall status
quo, even if she's satisfied with the lobbying disclosures as such.  But
I'll let Marilyn speak for herself.

BTW, I have no issue with the use of lobbying, it's a necessary part of the
process.  Some people like to use the term pejoratively in all cases, but
that's way overbroad to say the least. (Note, I am not now nor have I ever
been even remotely close to being a lobbyist.)

This thread is a somewhat unfortunate mix of a "micro" discussion on
disclosures of lobbying-ish behaviors (and contracts that seem to inhibit
such disclosures) and a "macro" discussion of ICANN's Transparency
obligations....

Greg

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Schaefer, Brett <
Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:

> Marilyn,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure why my e-mail elicited this response. I am glad you are
> satisfied with the status quo, but the fact that there is a transparency
> sub-group in WS2 indicates that others are not. If you are not concerned
> about it, I suggest you focus you efforts on areas you think improvements
> are required.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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:* Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade at hotmail.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2016 2:37 PM
> *To:* Schaefer, Brett; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* RE: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship
> Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
>
>
>
> I know. Brett, and as you work for a think tank with a need to focus on
> "it's not enough", I get it.
>
> I am a creature of my own country's great assets of taking $ to do this,
> and that, and one more investigative thing.
>
>
>
> I was fortunate. I got to do the building part. Helping to create the
> Internet Summit; America Links Up; and the launch of GetNetWise';
> IMUnified... a broadband initiative endorsed by the USG and the FCC, but
> developed by the private sector. ... and more... initiatives that were
> about building. not tearing down but focused on the let's do the best we
> can.And yes, I got to help to create the process that led to ICANN. All
> accidental, not planned, not a grand conspiracy as some might want to paint
> it.
>
>
>
> BUT I also work in more countries perhaps than some on this list.
>
>
>
> Maybe it is time to think: hmmm. so much of our economy is about R0W [Rest
> of world], wow, how can I personally think about the RoW while I also think
> about my own well funded Think Tank.
>
>
>
> Might be a good strategy for our shared future.
>
>
>
> M
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 18:10:13 +0000
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition -
> Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
>
> Marilyn,
>
>
>
> ICANN reports the lobbying information as required by US law, but that
> does not encompass the education/engagement efforts that often border on
> lobbying. Nor do US lobbying laws require disclosure of expenses for
> similar activities elsewhere. I do not know what laws apply in other
> countries, but it seems unreasonable to expect the community to endeavor to
> find that information in dozens of countries when ICANN could readily
> provide it.
>
>
>
> Also, it is troubling that the confidentiality clauses in ICANN contracts
> might serve as a loophole for transparency. Specifically, I expect they
> would block disclosure under the DIDP process. Would they also would
> prevent an individual Board Member or Decisional Participant from obtaining
> this information if they requested it under their Right of Inspection? Or
> impede the EC from obtaining the information through an independent audit?
>
>
>
> IMO, these are important questions that should be answered and resolved.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Brett
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *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:* accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Marilyn
> Cade
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:50 PM
> *To:* Sam Lanfranco; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship
> Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
>
>
>
> First of all, ICANN has always complied with the lobbying disclosures. :-)
>
> I know that some are turning up their noses at the use of lobbyists, but
> this is not a bad thing when one understands that in order to meet with
> elected officials and provide information, depending on how much of that
> one does, one registers as a lobbyist in the United States.
>
>
>
> I am not now a lobbyist, but at one time in my technical career which
> spaned 27 years, I was registered, because the majority of my job was to
> meet with elected officials -- in the USG, in the US Congress and in the US
> House of Representatives.  And my job was to talk about the Internet, to
> explain it, and to explain its benefits.  In those few years that I was in
> that role, each year, I disclosed all of the relevant information, as did
> my employer.
>
>
>
> From what I see, ICANN does the same.
>
>
>
> It is also acceptable for an organization to augment its staff with
> experts that are needed for only a short time period that are experts in
> communications, or in policy analysis, or in software redesign, or in
> Security, etc. etc.
>
>
>
> I too wonder what the right degree of transparency is, but I suspect it is
> pretty close to where we are now, with a few tweaks.
>
>
>
> And for anyone who wants to spend the time that I do every year on the
> ICANN budget, and make a positive contribution on that front, please,
> please, join me and Chuck Gomes, and Jimson Olufuye and many others, such
> as the ccTLDs and instead of complaining about lack of transparency, read
> the detailed reports that we do have access to, and attend the working
> sessions of the community on the ICANN budget.
>
>
>
> Marilyn Cade
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> From: sam at lanfranco.net
> Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:52:40 -0400
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition -
> Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
>
> More thoughts on:
>
> On 16-Aug-16 12:22, parminder wrote:
>
> I ask you; do you agree or not that ICANN should uphold these transparency
> standards that are upheld by public bodies?
>
> There are two complementary avenues for pursuing what should be ICANN’s
> commitment to transparency, and discussion should proceed on both fronts.
>
> One is try to distill a scope and depth of transparency from ICANN’s
> mission and vision. That includes considerations of what concepts like “in
> the public good”, “in the public interest” and “public governance” direct
> us (the multistakeholder community within ICANN) to consider in the
> establishment of a standard of transparency to which ICANN should aspire.
>
> The other avenue is to identify concrete and existing examples of a lack
> of transparency within the current operations of ICANN (e.g. lobbying
> contracts, “service” contracts, etc.) and build a remedial framework of
> transparency practice within ICANN.
>
> Discussion should proceed on both fronts.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
> Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
> listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-
> Community at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/
> listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160816/e28c0eec/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list