[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez crg at isoc-cr.org
Thu Jul 16 12:47:08 UTC 2015


reading the report published in the ICANN website  I had the feeling 
only the panel could have redacted the final document. Is ii true any 
party can redact put whatever they want to redact out of it? Who 
redacted the DCA sections? also ICANN staff?

Thank you

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
On 15 Jul 2015, at 11:14, 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.
> 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

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list