[Ws2-transparency] Personal Update and Response to ICANN questions re "interactions with governments"

[Michael Karanicolas]

Thanks so much Chris - that looks great. I expressed this already, on
the CCWG Co-Chair & Rapporteurs list, but I want to reiterate here how
much we appreciate your invaluable contributions to the subgroup's
work, and your role in getting us this far. We will miss your energy
and efforts.

Thanks again, and best wishes going forward.

Michael

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Wilson, Christopher <cwilson at 21cf.com> wrote:
> Transparency Subgroup:
>
>
>
> Following up on our call from April 25,  please find below responses to
> ICANN’s questions re the subgroup’s recommendation concerning ICANN’s
> interactions with governments.  I went over these on the call, but I wanted
> to lay them out via email as well.
>
>
>
> 1.       Re the definition of “political activity”:  This term is taken from
> the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act and is intended to be broader than
> the definitions of “lobbying” in the U.S. Lobbying Disclosure Act or under
> U.S. tax law.  We believe it captures more fully the scope of activities to
> be disclosed.
>
> 2.       Re application to an ICANN staffer or supported community member
> making a speech in a room with government reps present:  If ICANN staffer
> makes a speech that meets the definition under “political activity” and the
> staffer knows or should have known that a government official is present,
> then it should be disclosed.  There is no “broad audience” or “public”
> exception contemplated in the recommendation.  As for a “supported community
> member,” the subgroup does not consider such a person to be a representative
> of ICANN (neither employed by ICANN nor seen as an agent of ICANN) and
> therefore is not covered by this disclosure recommendation.
>
> 3.       Re a pamphlet distributed broadly, if the pamphlet meets the
> definition of “political activity” and is distributed to a government
> official, then it should be disclosed for similar reasons espoused under #2
> above.
>
> 4.       Re the definition of government: The subgroup suggests a reasonably
> broad definition and “anyone who is employed by [or acts on behalf of] a
> governmental entity” meets the threshold.
>
> 5.       Re who decides what is a matter of public policy:  ultimately the
> community will decide, but initially the subgroup relies upon ICANN to make
> a good-faith determination in its disclosure compliance.
>
> 6.       Re the scope of activities covered, the subgroup does not intend
> for the disclosure requirement to apply to the day-to-day activities and
> policymaking at ICANN (e.g., PDP WGs or ccNSO meetings, etc…)  This was
> explicitly stated in the subgroup’s report and recommendations.
>
> 7.       Re whether the recommendation applies to “ICANN-funded community
> stakeholders”:  It does not (see #2 above).
>
>
>
> Additionally, due to circumstances beyond my control, I want to let all know
> that I must step down as co-rapporteur for this subgroup.  I am sorry I
> cannot remain in place for the duration of this subgroup’s work, but I am
> confident that the finish line is near and will be reached by you all.  It
> has been great working with you.
>
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.