[Ws2-transparency] WS2 Transparency Recommendations

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Hi all,

as someone who attended the intersessional, I would like to express my
support to Michael's suggestion. Yes, the schedule is tough, but I
believe it is important to include these concerns into consideration.

Michael, thanks for bringing in to the list.

Warm regards,

Tatiana


On 05/02/18 18:43, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Hope everyone is doing well. I am just writing to follow up on the
> NCPH Intersessional, which took place last week. Included in the
> program was a session on transparency at ICANN legal. If you'll
> recall, when the recommendations were presented in Abu Dhabi, there
> was a fairly strong reaction among the audience that we didn't chart a
> stronger avenue forward for improving transparency at ICANN legal,
> which resulted in the drafting of a minority statement by Robin Gross
> of the NCSG and Malcolm Hutty of the ISPCP. The minority statement is
> attached.
>
> At last week's Intersessional, both the NCSG and the CSG leadership
> came out very strongly in support of the minority statement, and asked
> that we consider including these recommendations in the main report.
> Having taken another look at the minority statement, which is
> attached, I also support this, since it seems to offer more clarity
> without crossing any of the areas that people objected to in previous
> drafts.
>
> There are two main strands to the recommendations in the minority
> statement. The first is to initiate a public consultation on
> principles for how attorney-client privilege should be applied in
> ICANN's context. This basically just mirrors our existing language in
> Recommendation 15, but states in a clearer way, so that shouldn't be
> too controversial, I don't think.
>
> The second strand has three parts. First, it says that the mere fact
> that attorney-client privilege is available will not be determinative
> in whether it should be applied. Again - I don't see this as being too
> controversial, since it doesn't do anything to narrow the privilege,
> and is even consistent with ICANN legal's own proposal for the
> recommendation (which focused on committing to review materials before
> privilege is invoked). The second strand says that the mere fact that
> disclosure might assist a claimant or potential claimant in a case
> pursuant to the Independent Review Process shall not, of itself, be
> considered sufficient reason to assert attorney-client privilege. This
> is broadly in line with our general approach of looking for specific
> harms before information is classified, but it also asserts that
> fostering participation in an IRP should not be considered a "harm".
> We never discussed IRPs specifically, I don't think - but hopefully
> this is also not controversial. The third strand refers back to the
> “Purposes of the IRP”, as set out in Section 4.3 of the Bylaws, to
> further support the idea that IRP connected material may be disclosed.
>
> I realize it is very late in the process, but I was hoping to find a
> way to address the dissatisfaction that was expressed when these
> recommendations were addressed publicly, and hopefully to bring the
> supporters of the minority statement on board. Please let me know if
> you have any thoughts on this, or objections.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael Karanicolas
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180207/39bc1587/attachment.html>