Colleagues,

As has been discussed here before, there has been an effort by a number
of NCSG members (and others) to enhance ICANN's transparency mechanisms,
including its DIDP (cf:
https://listserv.syr.edu/scripts/wa.exe?A1=ind1510&L=NCSG-DISCUSS#6).

Initially, this was slated to be addressed in work stream 2. However, a
change regarding how ICANN entities will be designated has led to a
transparency gap and specifically into an enforcement gap under
California law. This has opened a window to begin addressing some of our
transparency issues in WS-1.

Brett and others have put together a statement on what should go into
this enhanced transparency initiative, and I was wondering if a) there's
any more NCSG input and b) if there's a chance to make this an NCSG
statement:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/11sX-zY5uie9s7zNeGz2GIRXk7BBg2xrbN_pplpJnNvc/edit?pli=1#heading=h.gjdgxs

Best,
Tamir

-- 

Tamir Israel
Staff Lawyer

Samuelson-Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC)
University of Ottawa | Faculty of Law | CML Section
57 Louis Pasteur Street
Ottawa | ON | K1N 6N5
☎: (613) 562-5800 ext. 2914
Fax: (613) 562-5417
PGP: 0xF0F41649 <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">https:[log in to unmask]>

*♺ Do you really need to print this email? / Est-ce nécessaire
d’imprimer ce courriel?*