[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Wed Jul 15 21:46:29 UTC 2015

Malcolm, thanks for raising the transparency issue. This is very important,
and I agree that we should definitely focus on IRP more.

Moreover, do we have time limits for IRP decisions? I don't know the
details of the case, but if it took them two years to issue  an outcome,
then can we really claim that they are efficient or they can be more
efficient than court?



On 15 July 2015 at 17:25, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:

> On 2015-07-15 18:14, Kieren McCarthy 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.
> I've generally supported Jonathan's view that we should concentrate on
> improving ICANN's accountability for its own sake,
> and not unnecessarily rake over old coals.
> However reading the .Africa ruling, I must say I was troubled. Some of
> the panel's findings seriously call into question the belief advanced by
> some of the "voluntarists" here that legally enforceability of
> accountability
> measures is unnecessary as ICANN can be trusted to honour our
> accountability
> proposals always in good faith.
> Kieren writes in his article:
>  "The report contains no less than 39 redactions, many pulling out entire
>> paragraphs of text. The Register has seen a non-redacted version of
>> the report, and we can say that most of those redactions concern the fact
>> that ICANN's head of operations, Dai-Trang Nguyen, drafted a
>> letter that was then used by ICANN to advance a competing .africa bid.
> That's a serious allegation. Since we have Board members on this list,
> perhaps they could explain
> i) is this true?
> ii) if it is true, why did ICANN consider it appropriate to redact such
> information from the report of the IRP panel?
> In the meantime, I would note that this raises yet another issue with the
> IRP we have not yet considered,
> namely should we provide explicitly that the IRP is to publish its
> findings itself, and should it publish in full,
> entirely at its own discretion, or should we establish principles for the
> limits of transparency?
> Again (I believe) we have failed to consider this because we have
> concentrated excessively on the community
> measures to the exclusion of IRP issues.
> --
>             Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>    Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>  London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
>                  London Internet Exchange Ltd
>            21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
>          Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>        Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150715/2064c2eb/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list