Hi Tamir,
2015-10-10 2:11 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[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]> 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
> >>
>
>
>