[Ws2-transparency] Materials for Tomorrow's WS2 Transparency Call

[Karel Douglas]

Thanks Micheal,

I will definitely try to make the call tomorrow.

regards

Karel DOUGLAS

On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
wrote:

> Thanks Michael.  I do understand the difficulty with scheduling
> conveniently for us all, and that we need to rotate call times to share the
> pain.  For me, it is more important to have robust written discussions on
> the list, because more people are able to participate more thoughtfully
> than on group conference calls.
>
> Actually, I think it raises another transparency issue, that so much
> "decision-making" is done on conference calls in ICANN working groups,
> rather than via written communication.  Forcing people who want to
> participate, to review call and chat transcripts, is incredibly inefficient
> and thus practically impossible.  ICANN Staff has gotten much better at
> summarizing WG calls in writing, but still in my recent experience I am
> seeing far too much judging of "consensus" on important points, via very
> limited indications of relatively few participants in conference calls.  I
> don't know if that is part of this group's remit to address, but something
> I have been thinking about so I throw it out there fwiw...  At least we can
> decide how we want this group to operate.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Michael Karanicolas <
> michael at law-democracy.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks Mike - great to hear from you. Sorry about the timing - we are
>> rotating the calls around, as per ICANN's guidelines. I can promise
>> you, both Chris and myself and very much looking forward to the call
>> following this one, which will be at 2 am and 3 am for us!
>>
>> We can certainly include the use of legal privilege in the discussion
>> on exceptions - as that's undoubtedly an important one to dig into.
>> More progressive jurisdictions have already significantly narrowed how
>> this is interpreted for public bodies. And independent oversight will
>> be an important part of the discussion under point 1.d.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 8:12 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > I won't be making many if any calls at 13:00 UTC as that is 6a.m. for
>> me.
>> > But I have ample experience getting thwarted by ICANN's self-serving,
>> > incredibly opaque DIDP; and so I intent to participate in those
>> discussions
>> > intensively.
>> >
>> > The thematic document poses good issues, to which I would add at least
>> one
>> > at the outset, which is to add "legal privilege" to the list of
>> exceptions
>> > always cited by ICANN.  At minimum, they should provide a privilege log
>> (as
>> > in US court practice, showing the date, the recipients and generally the
>> > topic of any document claimed to be privileged) for such withheld
>> > communications.  Also there should be a mechanism to challenge the
>> assertion
>> > of privilege or any other exception claimed by ICANN legal.  As of
>> today, as
>> > to all of the exceptions to disclosure, ICANN is the only arbiter of
>> > applicability of the exceptions.  They ought not be the sole decider, as
>> > accountability principles demand that an independent arbiter be allowed
>> to
>> > determine their applicability under circumstances where the assertion
>> of any
>> > privilege or exception is reasonably challenged.  That needs to get
>> built
>> > into the DIDP, in my humble opinion.
>> >
>> > I look forward to discussing these issues further.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Mike
>> >
>> > Mike Rodenbaugh
>> > RODENBAUGH LAW
>> > tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>> > http://rodenbaugh.com
>> >
>> > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 12:42 PM, Michael Karanicolas
>> > <michael at law-democracy.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hello all,
>> >>
>> >> In advance of our second call for the WS2 transparency subgroup, set
>> for
>> >> tomorrow at 1300 UTC, I am attaching a revised thematic outline.
>> Thanks to
>> >> everyone who contributed ideas, I think that we have succeeded in
>> mapping
>> >> out these issues very well, and look forward to discussing them
>> tomorrow.
>> >>
>> >> Our planned agenda for the meeting is:
>> >>
>> >> 1. Welcome
>> >> 2. Discussion re Thematic Overview Doc
>> >> 3. Next Steps (e.g., further research)
>> >> 4. AOB
>> >>
>> >> As further background, I am also attaching two reviews carried out by
>> >> ICANN which are pertinent to these issues, and which were mentioned in
>> the
>> >> last call.
>> >>
>> >> Best wishes,
>> >>
>> >> Michael Karanicolas
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-transparency mailing list
>> >> Ws2-transparency at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-transparency
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-transparency mailing list
> Ws2-transparency at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-transparency
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-transparency/attachments/20160817/efa4cf7f/attachment.html>