<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Verdana">Karl<br>
<br>
You are certainly right that any corporation which has to
undertake such a public interest function as ICANN does has to be
a membership based body. Any other formation is just too private
and closed. But then you of course know that after the 'community'
came up with a membership model for the ICANN, the ICANN board (no
doubt, backed by the US gov) simply said, nothing doing, they wont
accept it. And the 'community' promptly gave in and shifted to a
non membership model proposal. So much for ICANN's bottom up
model. However, most interesting is that is was ALAC that led the
abdication, and was first to kneel down and backtrack on the
membership model.<br>
<br>
And now, ALAC's leadership thinks that transparency is not such an
important thing to try and get out most on it while the 'iron is
still hot'. It is not difficult to see that the best possible deal
can only come as a part of the package, with the 'community'
demanding, and hopefully getting, it in exchange for accepting to
go on with the current non-membership model. But here again,
ALAC's leadership tells us that transparency processes are a
matter of detail that we can talk about later, when the key
political moment of the 'transition' has passed. Do you think they
are just naive. Sorry, but I am not willing to give them that
concession. But then what is it? It is for ALAC members to find
out. That is if anyone is interested.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Friday 30 October 2015 11:53 PM,
Karl Auerbach wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:5633B592.4060209@cavebear.com" type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
As the one and only person who has ever really exercised a legal
power to inspect and copy ICANN's books and properties I find this
discussion discomforting.<br>
<br>
There is no doubt that ICANN has lacked both transparency and
accountability in the past.<br>
<br>
ICANN was so obstinate and wrongheaded that I had to go to court
to obtain a writ of mandate in order to exercise a right that is
unambiguously given to sitting board members (such as I was) to
inspect and copy the corporate records and properties. ICANN, of
course, lost that legal action and a writ was issued that ordered
them to open their general ledgers and other materials to me (to
which they promptly complied.)<br>
<br>
And I don't think it is a reach to conclude that that situation
has not changed much, that ICANN currently lacks adequate
transparency and accountability.<br>
<br>
Some are suggesting that some sort of right of access be written
into ICANN's bylaws. I find that to be a very weak, and
ultimately not very useful thing. The reason I say this is that a
right of limited access written into a corporate by-law is far
weaker than a broad right of total access that is written into the
laws of corporations of many (if not all) jurisdictions. And
unless one has the hammer of broad statutory access the
corporation can be very evasive and dilatory.<br>
<br>
Broad access is necessary; one can not have a limited inspection -
For example when I looked at ICANN's general ledgers I found items
that needed to be backed up by supporting documentation. Had I
not had the power to require the production of that material I had
no basis to give credence to the ledger entries or to understand
whether they were being properly made.<br>
<br>
Similarly, when I finally was able to exercise my statutory rights
I discovered that ICANN's relationship with its employees and
contractors was flawed by the absence of materials and procedures
that are routinely practiced elsewhere. It would be very hard to
write that kind of access into a narrowly constricted right of
access by some "member"; that kind of transparency and
accountability requires the kind of broad, unconstrained, access
that is routinely granted to (and oft not well practiced by)
members of boards of directors.<br>
<br>
Any attempt to make ICANN more accountable ought to build on the
hundreds of years of experience in the operation and control of
the kind of organizations we put under the general name of
"corporations".<br>
<br>
That experience tells us that the primary vehicle of
accountability and transparency is a good board of directors who
take their responsibilities seriously and make truly independent
and informed - especially informed - decisions to act or not to
act. ICANN does not have such a board and seems, via its
nominative process, to be expressly and systemically designed to
avoid having such a board.<br>
<br>
In addition, experience tells us that such a board must feel the
pressure of those to whom the corporation is intended to benefit.
In commercial corporations that is the stockholders. In public
benefit corporations, such as ICANN, that is the public. "Feeling
the pressure" means much more than that the corporation and board
merely listening to comments. "Feeling the pressure" means
something stronger - such things as are enumerated in the
California laws that describe membership rights, as ICANN
conveniently enumerated back in 1999: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm">https://archive.icann.org/en/meetings/santiago/membership-analysis.htm</a><br>
<br>
Much has been said about membership. Under the laws of California
that govern ICANN a public-benefit non-profit corporation a body
of members is required if there is an election for board of
directors. (And there is no doubt that ICANN had such an election
in year 2000 even though they tried to avoid that fact by calling
it a "selection".)<br>
<br>
A non-membership public-benefit corporation is usually used for
things like theatre companies our other endeavors that are largely
the extension of a single, often artistic, mind, such as an
artistic director.<br>
<br>
But when the corporation is really an aggregation of minds,
opinions, and beneficiaries - as ICANN is to a very high degree -
a non-membership structure is simply not appropriate.<br>
<br>
But membership is a word that envisions more than one member. My
own sense is that an attempt to structure an ICANN membership with
exactly one member would fail. Judges are not stupid, they
understand pretense and are both willing to, and empowered to,
perceive actual substance over purported form. Even worse, they
might construe ICANN as a mere alter ego of that "member" and
decide that ICANN's corporate form is not real.<br>
<br>
I wear multiple hats - on one hand I am a techie working with
internet protocols. On the other hand, I am a California lawyer;
I sit on corporate boards; I create, own, and sell corporations.
The rules and structures of corporations, if honored in both form
and spirit, can result in open, transparent, and accountable
public-benefit corporations.<br>
<br>
Corporate forms - the rules and structures that the law dictates -
are not ivory tower fantasies. Rather they are the result of
centuries of practical experience in which people with contesting
and competing interests have come together to try to combine their
efforts towards some goal. The machinery of corporations was not
created in some ivory tower, it was created in the very real
world.<br>
<br>
But when those rules and structures are not honored or the
corporation thinks that it can create a system that somehow is
better than what has been honed into the law through centuries of
practical experience, then the result is most likely to be an
amateur construct, flawed, weak, and probably less accountable and
transparent than hoped.<br>
<br>
My point here is that there is a lot of wishful thinking going on
about ICANN and accountability and a lot of hand waiving about
what the law is or is not. And rather than trying to impose real
transparency and accountability upon ICANN by wishful inventions
we ought to use the well tried methods that are available through
well established legal forms of corporate structure and operation.<br>
<br>
And in this case, that method would be a board that is wholly
chosen by and seated by, a membership composed the broad community
of internet users with all of the kinds of powers that are
typically granted to members.<br>
<br>
--karl--<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/30/15 7:48 AM, parminder wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56338331.1050004@itforchange.net"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div class="moz-forward-container">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 class="moz-email-headers-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"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca"><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"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au"><ceo@auda.org.au></a>,
Schaefer, Brett <a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org"><Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC:
</th>
<td><a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"><accountability-cross-community@icann.org></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<style type="text/css" class="">
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px Helvetica; min-height: 14.0px}
p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #424242}
p.p3 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #424242; min-height: 16.0px}
p.p4 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px Verdana; color: #103ffb}
p.p5 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 9.0px Verdana; color: #ffa827; min-height: 11.0px}
p.p6 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 10.0px Verdana; color: #424242}
span.s1 {color: #000000}
span.s2 {color: #ff9324}
span.s3 {text-decoration: underline}
span.s4 {color: #424242}
span.s5 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #0000ee}
span.s6 {color: #ffa827}
span.s7 {color: #6c6c6c}
span.s8 {text-decoration: underline ; color: #103ffb}
</style>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"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au"><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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">I am not in favour of any ârightsâ
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 class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
<div class="">
<p class="p1"><br class="">
</p>
<p class="p2">Cheers,</p>
<p class="p3"><br class="">
</p>
<p class="p2">Chris Disspain<span class="s1"> </span><span
class="s2">|</span><span class="s1"> </span>Chief
Executive Officer</p>
<p class="p2">.au Domain Administration Ltd</p>
<p class="p2">T: <span class="s3">+61 3 8341 4111</span><span
class="s1"> </span><span class="s2">|</span><span
class="s1"> </span>F: <span class="s3">+61 3
8341 4112</span></p>
<p class="p4"><span class="s4">E:</span><span
class="s1"> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" class=""><span
class="s5">ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span
class="s6">|</span><span class="s1"> </span><span
class="s4">W:</span><span class="s7"> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.auda.org.au/" class=""><span
class="s8"></span></a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.auda.org.au">www.auda.org.au</a></span><span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></p>
<p class="p2">auDA â Australiaâs Domain Name
Administrator</p>
<p class="p5"><br class="">
</p>
<p class="p6"><span class="s6"><b class="">Important
Notice</b></span><span class="s1"><b
class=""> </b></span><b class="">- </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 class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:25 ,
Schaefer, Brett <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org"
class="">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">Matthieu,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Thanks,<br class="">
<br class="">
Brett<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
________________________________<br class="">
Brett Schaefer<br class="">
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in
International Regulatory Affairs<br class="">
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis
Institute for National Security and Foreign
Policy<br class="">
The Heritage Foundation<br class="">
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br class="">
Washington, DC 20002<br class="">
202-608-6097<br class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://heritage.org" class="">heritage.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://heritage.org/">http://heritage.org/</a>><br
class="">
<br class="">
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">mailto:egmorris1@toast.net</a>>>
wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
Mathieu,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Best,<br class="">
<br class="">
Ed Morris<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Sent from my iPhone<br class="">
<br class="">
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>>
wrote:<br class="">
<br class="">
Dear Colleagues,<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
- 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
Icanâs accounting books and records.<br
class="">
<br class="">
- 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 class="">
<br class="">
- 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
class="">
<br class="">
Thomas did conclude by saying âSo thatâs
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<br
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
I would note that, with the groupâs 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
class="">
<br class="">
Best,<br class="">
Mathieu<br class="">
<br class="">
For your reference :<br class="">
Full transcript --> <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2</a><br
class="">
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"
class="">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
class="">
<br class="">
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1.<br
class="">
Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:<br
class="">
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 ICANNâs
justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman
and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the
disclosure request.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 ICANNâs 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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
De : <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
class="">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org"
class="">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>]
De la part de Kieren McCarthy<br class="">
Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58<br
class="">
à : Padmini<br class="">
Cc : <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org"
class="">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br
class="">
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on
Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br class="">
<br class="">
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re:
DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to
documents already publicly available".<br
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
I don't know why Board members have such a
blind spot about how the staff behaves to
those outside the corporation.<br class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
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
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
Kieren<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com">mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>>>
wrote:<br class="">
Dear Bruce,<br class="">
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 class="">
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 class="">
That 66 is a figure that we might need to
scrutinise closer in terms of how effective
those disclosures actually have been.<br
class="">
Warm Regards<br class="">
Padmini<br class="">
Programme Associate, Internet Governance<br
class="">
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore,
India<br class="">
<br class="">
Padmini Baruah<br class="">
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)<br class="">
NLSIU, Bangalore<br class="">
<br class="">
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au"
class="">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>>
wrote:<br class="">
Hello Greg,<br class="">
<br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""> 6333. The
accounting books and records and minutes
of proceedings<br class="">
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
of the members and the board and committees of
the board shall be<br class="">
open to inspection upon the written dem and on
the corporation of any<br class="">
member at any reasonable time, for a purpose
reasonably related to<br class="">
such person's interests as a member.<br
class="">
<br class="">
The minutes are basically published today.
The only minutes apparently that are not
posted are compensation committee minutes â
but even then we could at least note the items
discussed without necessarily disclosing some
personal information.<br class="">
<br class="">
With regard to financialsâ 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) â which would
include information on payments to all staff
etc.<br class="">
<br class="">
We do use an ex ternal auditor to validate our
financials and processes once per year.<br
class="">
<br class="">
If there is a community concern about a
particular financial matter (e.g concern about
whether procurement policies were being
followed) â 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
class="">
<br class="">
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 class="">
<br class="">
Regards ,<br class="">
Bruce Tonkin<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"
class="">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community"
class="">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org></a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
<br class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org></a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org"><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org></a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
_______________________________________________<br class="">
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br
class="">
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br
class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
</div>
</div>
</span>
<pre class="k9mail"><hr>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a>
At-Large Official Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://atlarge.icann.org">http://atlarge.icann.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>