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: [log in to unmask]">0xF0F41649

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