[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

[Barrack Otieno]

Good observation Farzaneh,

Justice delayed is justice denied. There are a lot off inefficiencies
in the current IRP process that need to be resolved as soon as
possible if the community is to have faith in the process.

Regards

On 7/16/15, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Best
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
>


-- 
Barrack O. Otieno
+254721325277
+254-20-2498789
Skype: barrack.otieno
http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/