[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Wed Jul 15 18:13:09 UTC 2015

Just read your story, Kieren.

Excellent work – and very troubling in its revelations.

Certainly has implications for the final accountability package.

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004

Twitter: @VlawDC

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:14 PM
To: Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

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/


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org<mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:

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.


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.

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15
Internal Virus Database is out of date.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150715/7fd0cce0/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list