[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 17:25:04 UTC 2015


Kieren,

That is a fascinating and troubling revelation.  It tends to call into
question all sorts of issues relating to confidentiality, DIDP, etc., as
exercised by ICANN, Inc.

Greg

On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:

> I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa
> decision.
>
> As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent"
> report were redacted.
>
> I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff
> systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter
> for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign
> a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
>
> In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with
> integrity and fairness".
>
> I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last
> week, in the middle of this accountability process.
>
> Full story:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we
>> need to give more time to IRP.  Not only is it a critical part of the
>> puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt
>> with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in
>> terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals
>> against an ACSO's [non]actions.
>>
>> avri
>>
>>
>> On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
>> > Dear Chairs,
>> >
>> > I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that
>> > we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community
>> > Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the
>> > extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in
>> > particular IRP improvements.
>> >
>> > I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of
>> > the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for
>> > cross-check with CWG requirements.
>> >
>> > I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure
>> > will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver
>> > community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on
>> > direct accountability.
>> >
>> > I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to
>> > the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our
>> > IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look
>> > at the diagram!).
>> >
>> > I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during
>> > the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
>> >
>> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
>> >
>> > Kind Regards,
>> >
>> > Malcolm Hutty.
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---
>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150715/1cd7b17b/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list