[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
psc at vlaw-dc.com
Thu Jul 16 15:00:57 UTC 2015
I have no hesitation at all in stating that allowing the staff who are subject to IRP identification to redact the document released for public consumption is an inherent conflict of interest.
Redaction is of course sometimes necessary and appropriate. But it is a form of censorship at odds with a commitment to transparency, and therefore the rules about when it can be done and by whom are quite important.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
1155 F Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
>> On 16 Jul 2015, at 14:22, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
>> Hello Malcolm,
>>>> Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
>> Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
>> I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
> Thank you for replying, and I am gladdened that you are alive to the interest in this.
> I look forward to seeing the staff explanation.
> Here are two more paragraphs I just wrote as my instinctive reaction:
> "Assuming Kieren's allegations about the nature of the redacted material are correct, we must conclude that they acted to conceal direct criticism by the panel of identifiable individuals - both in their identity and the details of the actions criticised.
> Since you confirm that this was not in pursuit of a direct, individualised instruction to the staff from the Board, I look forward to reading in their explanation why they thought this concealment was appropriate and more generally authorised, and later asking Board members whether they accept that explanation. "
> Then, before hitting 'Send', I wondered whether I was not guilty in saying that of trying to insert this community into the executive chain of command, in just the way some here have warned against in the staff accountability thread, myself amongst them? Is it proper for me to be demanding that the staff account for their actions in this manner, or am I intruding on the purview of the Board? If I am, I fear my proper course would be to reject your deflection to the staff and instead request that the Board either defend (if any defence is possible) or else apologise for and correct the behaviour of the Corporation, without seeking to separate themselves from its actions for which they are ultimately responsible.
> Food for thought, as we consider the 'staff accountability' thread.
> I know this is uncomfortable, so let me close by thanking you again personally for your response. It does not pass unnoticed that you are personally willing to engage even when all might not seem well, which is not always visible from every Board member's interaction with this group.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community