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

[McAuley, David]

I appreciate your efforts Michael. I have a couple of questions/comments.

First, on open contracting I am uncertain what is meant by this sentence, “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.”

If that is one participant/rapporteur comment to the full CCWG or even just to our subgroup then it is a perfectly made comment. If by that, however, you mean that the issue is now resolved then I would disagree.

If you sent this just to our subgroup because the issue is back in our hands then I would simply note that the notion has not been dispelled for me. ICANN doesn’t have the budget or army of bureaucrats that these governments do. Moreover, I am not an expert on open contracting and would like to go back and read the comments made in the plenary meeting this past Wednesday on this issue.

I would suggest we have another call to discuss any issues that have been sent back to us for further work - or, if we wish to handle on list then in my opinion we should tee it/them up for a list discussion. I don’t think all of our participants were on the call yesterday and some who were on call may have been involved in chat and possibly missed part of the open contracting discussion.

Second, on human rights overlap, in my view discussions among the respective subgroup rapporteurs are good and helpful, but not determinative. Whether one report intrudes on the work of another subgroup’s work is for the groups to discuss and reach consensus, not just the rapporteurs – and eventually for the CCCWG plenary to decide. I think that is what you mean but think it best to check.

Best regards,
David

David McAuley
International Policy Manager
Verisign Inc.
703-948-4154

-----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: [EXTERNAL] [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 -
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