<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 31 October 2015 03:52 AM,
Seun Ojedeji wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6g408T+oL5VPOznWoZEOHF8VCBQPr2dy8HSGUsextwpRw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Hi,</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I really have no idea why people tie transparency to
models as they are just processes that needs to be set and
followed.</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
Seun, you really think transparency is just some processes that get
set and followed, rather innocently!!??<br>
<br>
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_RTI_activists_in_India">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_on_RTI_activists_in_India</a> ).
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. <br>
<br>
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 <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAD_dc6g408T+oL5VPOznWoZEOHF8VCBQPr2dy8HSGUsextwpRw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<p dir="ltr">Regards</p>
<p dir="ltr">Sent from my Asus Zenfone2<br>
Kindly excuse brevity and typos.</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 30 Oct 2015 19:49, "parminder" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:<br type="attribution">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <br>
<div>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)<br>
<br>
And ALAC is supposed to be the representative of the
'outsiders'.....A really strange world, i'd say!<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was:
Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date:
</th>
<td>Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:44 +0000</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From:
</th>
<td>Alan Greenberg <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"
target="_blank"><alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To:
</th>
<td>Chris Disspain <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank"><ceo@auda.org.au></a>,
Schaefer, Brett <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org"
target="_blank"><Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC:
</th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank"><accountability-cross-community@icann.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM
GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank"><ceo@auda.org.au></a>
wrote:
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0pt 0pt
0pt 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span
style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">I
disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Chris Disspain<span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>Chief
Executive Officer</p>
<p>.au Domain Administration Ltd</p>
<p>T: <span><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111"
value="+61383414111" target="_blank">+61
3 8341 4111</a></span><span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>F:
<span>+61 3 8341 4112</span></p>
<p><span>E:</span><span> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au"
target="_blank"><span>ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span>|</span><span> </span><span>W:</span><span>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.auda.org.au/"
target="_blank"><span>www.auda.org.au</span></a></span><span> </span></p>
<p>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name
Administrator</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><span><b>Important Notice</b></span><span><b>
</b></span><b>- </b>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.</p>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:25 , Schaefer,
Brett <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org"
target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br>
<div>Matthieu,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
<br>
Brett<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
________________________________<br>
Brett Schaefer<br>
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs<br>
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis
Institute for National Security and
Foreign Policy<br>
The Heritage Foundation<br>
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>
Washington, DC 20002<br>
202-608-6097<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://heritage.org"
target="_blank">heritage.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://heritage.org/"
target="_blank">http://heritage.org/</a>><br>
<br>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net"
target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net"
target="_blank">mailto:egmorris1@toast.net</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Mathieu,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Ed Morris<br>
<br>
<br>
Sent from my iPhone<br>
<br>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr"
target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr"
target="_blank">mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
Dear Colleagues,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>
- 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)<br>
<br>
- 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.<br>
<br>
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.†<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
For your reference :<br>
Full transcript --> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2"
target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2</a><br>
Slide-deck --> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2"
target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2</a><br>
<br>
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1.<br>
Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
De : <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
De la part de Kieren McCarthy<br>
Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58<br>
À : Padmini<br>
Cc : <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on
Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br>
<br>
I have to agree with Padmini on this one
re: DIDP and being "able to refer the
requestor to documents already publicly
available".<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
I don't know why Board members have such a
blind spot about how the staff behaves to
those outside the corporation.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
<br>
Kieren<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com"
target="_blank">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com"
target="_blank">mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>>>
wrote:<br>
Dear Bruce,<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
That 66 is a figure that we might need to
scrutinise closer in terms of how
effective those disclosures actually have
been.<br>
Warm Regards<br>
Padmini<br>
Programme Associate, Internet Governance<br>
Centre for Internet and Society,
Bangalore, India<br>
<br>
Padmini Baruah<br>
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)<br>
NLSIU, Bangalore<br>
<br>
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce
Tonkin <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
target="_blank">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>>
wrote:<br>
Hello Greg,<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"> 6333. The
accounting books and records and
minutes of proceedings<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
of the members and the board and
committees of the board shall be<br>
open to inspection upon the written dem
and on the corporation of any<br>
member at any reasonable time, for a
purpose reasonably related to<br>
such person's interests as a member.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
We do use an ex ternal auditor to validate
our financials and processes once per
year.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards ,<br>
Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank"><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org></a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank"><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org></a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank"><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org></a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing
list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<pre><hr>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://atlarge.icann.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>