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

[Wilson, Christopher]

As Michael notes below and pursuant to the discussion on the CCWG plenary call yesterday, please find attached my edits to the "ICANN's Interactions with Governments" recommendation.  In particular, I have deleted the word "formalized" and made it clear on both p. 13 and in new FN 35 on p. 21 that this new disclosure requirement is not meant to encompass government-ICANN interactions directly related to ICANN administrative and policy matters (e.g., a PDP WG).

I hope this clarifies the breadth of the disclosure for those concerned.  I welcome additional thoughts, if any.

Best,

Chris

-----Original Message-----
From: ws2-transparency-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ws2-transparency-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Michael Karanicolas
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2017 2:09 PM
To: ws2-transparency at icann.org
Subject: [Ws2-transparency] Follow up from yesterday's call

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 - https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.eugene-2Dor.gov_bids.aspx-3FbidID-3D138&d=DgIFaQ&c=QCEPhmH9WJ8wFC_LYDIWIQ&r=_yIH0j711TdLk87MBYWQ4A&m=lqmaUpb7nC52BMYoWRwCR7cK8H_Q0_Ze1AoQy1weW-M&s=Dd2-_vlAU6kvxVXGWyGzK3nlqIzI8g4-PXqClnwaXnU&e=  - 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
This message and its attachments may contain legally privileged or confidential information. It is intended solely for the named addressee. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to the addressee), you may not copy or deliver this message or its attachments to anyone. Rather, you should permanently delete this message and its attachments and kindly notify the sender by reply e-mail. Any content of this message and its attachments that does not relate to the official business of Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. or its subsidiaries must be taken not to have been sent or endorsed by any of them. No representation is made that this email or its attachments are without defect.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CCWG_WS2_Transp Report Draft2_ChrisWilsonEdits_Jan12.docx
Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document
Size: 115263 bytes
Desc: CCWG_WS2_Transp Report Draft2_ChrisWilsonEdits_Jan12.docx
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-transparency/attachments/20170112/dd33f8a0/CCWG_WS2_TranspReportDraft2_ChrisWilsonEdits_Jan12-0001.docx>