[Ws2-transparency] Follow up from yesterday's call

[Michael Karanicolas]

Hi all,

A couple of things, to follow up on from yesterday's call. First, in
line with our discussions on harmonization between subgroups, I've
reached out to Sebastien and to Niels, to advance discussions on
ensuring that our subgroups are not working at cross purposes,
intruding onto one another's work themes or forwarding contradictory
recommendations.

Second, with regard to open contracting and the duty to document, it's
been raised that these recommendations are impractical, or impossible
to properly implement, so I thought it would be good to provide a bit
of supplemental information on how these exact policies have been
successfully applied elsewhere.

Regarding open contracting and publishing unsuccessful bids, one good
example is from Eugene OR, which has a mandatory policy of publishing
information on all bids received for every call for proposals or
tender that they put out. You can find an example here -
http://www.eugene-or.gov/bids.aspx?bidID=138 - see the "Bid Tabulation
down at the bottom". Richmond VA does the same, as I have mentioned
previously (attaching their tabulation as a pdf, since I can't
directly link it, for some reason).

Regarding the duty to document - again, the language reflects common
governmental standards. In the US, federal law has enshrined a duty to
document since 1968 (see 44 USC § 3101). New Zealand’s Public Records
Act imposes similar standards, and multiple Australian jurisdictions
have had a duty to document in place for nearly twenty years. For
example, the State of New South Wales legislated on the matter 18
years ago, when it enacted records management obligations that
required each public office to make and keep full and accurate records
of the activities of the office.

This is, of course, not an exhaustive list of where these policies
have been successfully implemented - just what I was able to dig up
quickly. However, I think these examples should be enough to dispel
the notion that these suggestions are in any way impractical or
unworkable. If governments in the US, New Zealand and Australia can
function perfectly well with parallel rules in place, there's no
reason why ICANN couldn't do so.

Regarding the discussion on transparency of interactions with
governments, and the discussion of the word "formalized", I think
Chris should send something along shortly.

Best,

Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: IFB_Z11234-1_BIDTAB.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 36560 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-transparency/attachments/20170112/649d8649/IFB_Z11234-1_BIDTAB-0001.pdf>