[At-Large] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Sat Oct 31 03:28:18 UTC 2015
On Saturday 31 October 2015 03:52 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have no idea why you said this, I for one am in support of
> inspection rights in WS1 but it's a different ball game trying to
> address entire transparency in WS1 at this time. It's also incorrect
> to say we should bring transparency to WS1 because of the move from
> membership model.
>
> I really have no idea why people tie transparency to models as they
> are just processes that needs to be set and followed.
>
Seun, you really think transparency is just some processes that get set
and followed, rather innocently!!??
In India, activists got the right to information after a long struggle
and it is considered as perhaps the biggest gain in citizen power since
we become a democracy (maybe other than local self governance systems
instituted in the 80s). Every month we hear news of right to information
activists being murdered become they exercised this important political
tool ( see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_RTI_activists_in_India ). And
you think this kind of a thing is just nothing! it is high time that
those who purport to represent civil society, or the otherwise
unrepresented, in ICANN develop a closer alignment with civil society
outside ICANN and begin understanding power and politics in a manner
that is required to so represent the unrepresented.
How easily purported people's representation is getting coopted in
maintaining the economic and political status quo of Internet governance
fills one with despair. No personal attributions, but in my political
opinion, this has quite fallen to the level of a full-scale scandal, and
requires some urgent intervention and remedy.... parminder
> Regards
>
> Sent from my Asus Zenfone2
> Kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On 30 Oct 2015 19:49, "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>
>
> After opposing greater accountability of ICANN through a
> membership based model, ALAC leadership seems also eager to *not*
> support increased transparency.... (Now, please dont cite
> technical reasons, people normally employ 'technical reasons' and
> 'facts' in pursuance of what they want accomplished and not
> against it)
>
> And ALAC is supposed to be the representative of the
> 'outsiders'.....A really strange world, i'd say!
>
> parminder
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
> Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
> Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:44 +0000
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> <mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> To: Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>,
> Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>
> CC: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>
>
>
> Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2
> issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this
> automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1
> issue. To add it now is mission creap.
> --
> Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
>
> On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain
> <ceo at auda.org.au> <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>
> I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
>
> I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the
> enforcement rights already agreed being given to the
> designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being
> given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of
> consensus.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Chris Disspain| Chief Executive Officer
>
> .au Domain Administration Ltd
>
> T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3
> 8341 4112
>
> E: ceo at auda.org.au
> <mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au
> <http://www.auda.org.au/>
>
> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
>
>
> *Important Notice****- *This email may contain information
> which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and
> is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you
> are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or
> copy any part of this email. If you have received this email
> by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message
> immediately. Please consider the environment before printing
> this email.
>
>
>> On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett
>> <Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
>> <mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Matthieu,
>>
>> I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in
>> Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say
>> consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to
>> the designator.
>>
>> The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other
>> transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others
>> think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise
>> or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it
>> focus on these items of dispute.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> Brett Schaefer
>> Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International
>> Regulatory Affairs
>> Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for
>> National Security and Foreign Policy
>> The Heritage Foundation
>> 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
>> Washington, DC 20002
>> 202-608-6097
>> heritage.org <http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris
>> <egmorris1 at toast.net
>> <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Mathieu,
>>
>> Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly
>> thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this
>> issue, express my support for their rational, considered,
>> centered and measur ed approach to transparency and
>> inspection issues, and express my full support for the
>> approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of
>> certain provisions from the old reference model into into the
>> new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an
>> approach between the two extremes recently debated on list
>> and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable
>> way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity
>> to get this done right. Thanks again.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill
>> <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
>> <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Colleagues,
>>
>> First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working
>> hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find
>> an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
>>
>> Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind
>> everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on
>> Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in
>> Dublin.
>>
>>
>> - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of
>> transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model
>> as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to
>> the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s
>> accounting books and records.
>>
>> - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner
>> about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how
>> we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on
>> for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant
>> extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
>>
>> - There was a debate about whether or not extra
>> provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1,
>> considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the
>> WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
>>
>> Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item
>> for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact
>> language and extent to which a transparency is required.â€
>>
>> In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I
>> believe the question is whether transparency provisions,
>> beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed
>> definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of
>> consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
>>
>> I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2
>> initiative would already be well advanced. It might be
>> possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our
>> WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
>>
>> Best,
>> Mathieu
>>
>> For your reference :
>> Full transcript -->
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2
>> Slide-deck -->
>> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2
>>
>> page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1.
>> Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:
>> To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's
>> deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset
>> thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and
>> documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or
>> information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide
>> a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not
>> satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the
>> Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the
>> disclosure request.
>>
>> For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the
>> Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and
>> information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either
>> in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not
>> satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable
>> documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman
>> and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure
>> designation.
>>
>> A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by
>> ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe
>> the process by which documents and information are
>> classified, including a description of the levels of
>> classification that documents or information may be subject
>> to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents
>> and information.
>>
>> The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the
>> process by which a Review Team may request access to
>> documents and information that are designated as classified
>> or restricted access.
>>
>> The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the
>> provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a
>> Review Team may be asked to sign.
>>
>> The confidential disclosure framework must provide a
>> mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release
>> documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
>>
>>
>>
>> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
>> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De
>> la part de Kieren McCarthy
>> Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58
>> À : Padmini
>> Cc : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms
>> for CCWG
>>
>> I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being
>> "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly
>> available".
>>
>> The information provided is often tangential to what has
>> actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far
>> removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
>>
>> I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about
>> how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
>>
>> And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board
>> member - announce that they have decided to look into the
>> staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
>>
>> If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process
>> was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the
>> process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the
>> community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of
>> internal review of what happened and what could be done to
>> make sure it didn't happen again.
>>
>> But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these
>> ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the
>> effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
>>
>>
>> Kieren
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini
>> <pdmnbaruah at gmail.com
>> <mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>>
>> wrote:
>> Dear Bruce,
>> As someone who has spent some time combing through the
>> different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP
>> requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been
>> posted earlier.
>> While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of
>> documents that are publicly available, many times, there is
>> little or no connection between the information one seeks and
>> the publicly available documents that are provided. For
>> instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry
>> audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party
>> audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or
>> discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number
>> of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great
>> detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request
>> on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad
>> grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as
>> ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they
>> aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but
>> are drowning you in documents anyway.
>> That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer
>> in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been.
>> Warm Regards
>> Padmini
>> Programme Associate, Internet Governance
>> Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
>>
>> Padmini Baruah
>> V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
>> NLSIU, Bangalore
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin
>> <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
>> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
>> wrote:
>> Hello Greg,
>>
>>>> 6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of
>>>> proceedings
>> of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be
>> open to inspection upon the written dem and on the
>> corporation of any
>> member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably
>> related to
>> such person's interests as a member.
>>
>> The minutes are basically published today. The only
>> minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation
>> committee minutes – but even then we could at least note
>> the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some
>> personal information.
>>
>> With regard to financials– we are already moving towards
>> the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA.
>> We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a
>> quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and
>> the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be
>> normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting
>> system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include
>> information on payments to all staff etc.
>>
>> We do use an ex ternal auditor to validate our financials and
>> processes once per year.
>>
>> If there is a community concern about a particular financial
>> matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were
>> being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate
>> if the single legal entity that represents the community
>> powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to
>> validate any particular process or numbers and report back to
>> the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills
>> to analyse financial accounting records and also have
>> appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
>>
>> I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we
>> already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial
>> reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of
>> making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions
>> for improving our processes.
>>
>> Regards ,
>> Bruce Tonkin
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> <mailto:At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20151031/41f17e26/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the At-Large
mailing list