Thanks Rafik,

On second though, I think you are probably right. I know for .CA, LEA
requests go directly to CIRA but now that I think about it, it must be
because of the way our WHOIS is setup. It would make sense for LEA
requests to go to registrars rather than ICANN.

If that's the case though then, as you say, it might still be worth
exploring transparency reports, even if these end up coming from the GAC
or are imposed onto registrars via ICANN policy. As an accountability
mechanism, these reports are becoming fairly standard to have in the
telecommunications context..

Not sure if the DIDP process is the most appropriate mechanism for it
though. Any thoughts on how something like that could be moved forward
(or reasons why it should not be moved forward) would be appreciated..
There might be a clearer picture of how to design such a thing after the
dublin meeting (which, regrettably, I cannot attend).

Best,
Tamir

On 10/10/2015 9:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Tamir,
> 2015-10-10 2:11 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>
>     Perhaps a single independent commissioner-type may make the most
>     sense.
>     The trick I think would be to ensure independence. That tends to be
>     easier to do if there are more than one, because you can allocate one
>     per stakeholder group. Still, I think by encoding some criteria (no
>     strong industry or ICANN affil for 2 years back or something;
>     nomination
>     committee w/CS representation; dedicated funding for independence) it
>     can be done.
>
>     Another quick thought here: I did not see a proactive disclosure
>     section
>     in the document. Would it be worth adding?
>
>     Related, does anyone know if ICANN handles law enforcement requests or
>     whether these are handled by the registrars? If so, it would seem that
>     including the obligation to issue annual LEA transparency reports
>     would
>     not be out of line.
>
>
>
> to be honest, it is unclear how ICANN handle direct requests from LEA,
> while we may get more information from registrars on the type of
> requests they get.
>  there is some work going with the new Compliance Chief Officer
> regarding how to handle requests or abuse reports (but not necessarily
> LEA) . here a blog post with some
> updates https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-activity
> (there are 2 sessions at ICANN meeting in wednesday 21st
> Oct https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-practices-combating-abuse
> & https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-compliance . I
> invited weeks ago The Compliance Chief Officer to come to NCSG meeting
> in Tuesday 20th Oct so we can discuss with him.
>
> I would highlight that LEAs have their GAC Public Safety working group
> and it has several sessions in Dublin meeting too. that was shared by
> the LEAs representatives who came to NCSG meeting in Buenos Aires. it
> will be interesting to see what they are planning to do and push for.
>
> definitely, the idea of LEA transparency reports should be suggested .
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
>
>
>     On 10/7/2015 8:46 AM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>     > That's a very interesting idea. I feel like the structure of appeals
>     > is probably the trickiest conceptual aspect of improving the
>     DIDP, so
>     > good to consider alternatives. I think in part it would depend
>     on the
>     > level of demand for information that ICANN gets, and how often
>     appeals
>     > go forward. It's also important to bear in mind that, whoever is
>     > deciding these things, they need to have access to absolutely
>     > everything ICANN has, and a high level of familiarity with the inner
>     > workings of ICANN, so that they could determine, for example,
>     whether
>     > particular information would compromise the integrity of ICANN's
>     > deliberative and decision-making process in line with the second
>     > defined condition for nondisclosure.
>     >
>     > This is in addition to the qualities Karel mentions (robust, cost
>     > effective, timely appeals) - which I also fully agree with.
>     >
>     > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]
>     <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>     >> On 10/6/2015 1:02 PM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>     >>> This sort of brings us back to a fundamental challenge with
>     reforming ICANN's
>     >>> access to information system, which is the need for some sort
>     of analogous independent branch (I'm not completely certain the
>     Ombudsman fits the bill).
>     >> On this point, I'm not sure how far we dare go here, but would
>     it be
>     >> unreasonable to set up an arb panel comparable to the ones
>     private ones
>     >> used for the UDRP (only, of course, appointed by a
>     cross-stakeholder
>     >> nomination committee and with strict independence criteria) for
>     >> evaluating such things?
>     >>
>     >> Best,
>     >> Tamir
>     >>
>
>
>