[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

Mon Mar 23 12:05:46 UTC 2015

I pulled a few of the investment policy  segments that concern me.
I looked and did not find info on who the Investment. Company is and how they are chosen. FINRA purges complaints against its members so there is no knowing the correct complaint history of an investment company unless an extensive criminal background search is done of court records . I tell people 'think Madoff.'
The SEC has oversight only of US registered financial vehicles. The Board proposed the holdings be weighted outside of the US. This is bad.
Carrie Devorah
Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
Expected Investment Return (%) of Funds
Funds shall be invested in assets that are expected to yield the greatest investment return given the risk profile and other parameters of the fund. Past performance is not a guarantee of future performance but it may provide some guidance on the expectations of how the fund may perform under different market conditions.

()
Permissible Investment Vehicles
The Investment Management Company may recommend investments in actively managed and/or passive strategies that invest in marketable securities. These strategies may be institutional mutual funds or commingled funds. The underlying security holdings must be transparent .

()

mportant priorities. The ICANNInvestment Policy assumes that a well diversified portfolio designed for investment performance and safety should contain a significant amount of investments in non-US assets and are also based in non-US dollar denominated currencies.

()

cus. The funds thatICANN invests in should reflect the global nature of ICANN. The actual assets allocated to non-US–based assets and non-US dollar denominated investments shall be suggested by the Investment Management Company and approved by the CFO.

()

 The Reserve Fund is suggested to have a significant global focus. The Investment Policy enables the Reserve Fund to invest in global assets. Actual allocations are to be monitored by the Board and may be subject to further limitations between developing and emerging foreign markets consistent with ICANN's risk profile.

()

 For this reason, the Board of Directors has delegated to the Board Finance Committee (BFC) the authority to act on behalf of the Board of Directors of ICANN as it related to the disbursement of funds up to $5 million for emergency purposes from the Reserve Fund. Any such action by the BFC will be communicated to the full Board of Directors within seven days of any decision.

() 

 (Ethics) decisions. Any known or suspected violations must be disclosed to ICANN's General Counsel. 

The investment co
Must 
Report monthly to the CFO on the performance of the Reserve Fund and compliance with the Investment Policy.
Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:30 AM, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner at icann.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi Paul - 
> 
> I recognize that you may be discussing a different type of audit than a straight audit of financials, but I thought it was of value to point out that ICANN has, for many years, been subject to an audit of its financial records performed by an independent auditor.  Each year’s audited financial statements is available from the ICANN historical financials page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/historical-en.  The ICANN Board’s Audit Committee oversees the auditor selection and reporting process.  
> 
> In addition, to the extent the surplus you raise is then placed into a reserve fund, principles for the management of the operating fund and reserve fund are included within ICANN’s investment policy (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en?routing_type=path), which is regularly reviewed.  
> 
> Best, 
> 
> Sam
> 
> From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM
> To: 'Jordan Carter' <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>, 'Arun Sukumar' <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in>
> Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
> 
> Dear Jordan
>  
> This is a very useful point – one, that I’ve been making in other contexts for a while.  Two things we should consider requiring:
>  
> Conduct and publicly release a five-year forensic audit. Before entrusting ICANN with greater autonomy, it should provide evidence that its financial and management decisions have been sound and comport with accepted business practices.
>  
> Conduct an annual outside audit. ICANN should be required to contract with an internationally recognized auditing firm (such as Deloitte, Dettica, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, or KPMG) to conduct and publicly release an annual audit of the organizations. The costs should be paid by ICANN and the new IANA consortium and the auditing firm should be eligible only if it does not have a pre-existing contract with ICANN.
>  
> One other point:  If, as seems to be the case, ICANN’s current fee structure creates an excess of income over expenses, thought should be given to requiring a rebate of some sort --- it is not wise for a “non-profit” to routinely run a surplus as that will be an inducement to expand the mission into new areas where the $ can usefully be spent.
>  
> Paul
>  
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
> Link to my PGP Key
> <image001.jpg>
>  
> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz] 
> Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:37 AM
> To: Arun Sukumar
> Cc: Accountability Cross Community
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
>  
> Another question which came up in the discussion this afternoon, is the question of "following the money" - what does economic influence translate into in terms of power within ICANN, and how is the CCWG taking account of this?
>  
> It's an important question that I am not sure we've spent much time on yet.
>  
> bests
> Jordan
>  
>  
> On 22 March 2015 at 11:34, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar at nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:
> Valerie D'Costa, an advisor to the CCWG, raised a couple of interesting and important questions on process and substance. I hope this is a faithful reproduction. 
>  
> On process:
>  
> 1. What should be the role of advisors? Should they offer advice on the basis of unanimity or "rough consensus", or just provide input independently? 
>  
> 2. Should advisors restrict their role to responding to questions that have been flagged by the CCWG and routed through the chairs? Or should they/ can they flag issues they feel are important - weighed from their expertise. 
>  
> On substance:
>  
> 1. How is the accountability process taking stock of the evolving "global internet community", given that it is going to be driven by numbers from the  developing world? 
>  
> 2. Taking off from Q1, is the CCWG evaluating the future capacity of ICANN to be truly representative in the years to come?
>  
> arun
>  
> --
> -
> @arunmsukumar
> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
> National Law University, New Delhi
> Ph: +91-9871943272
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> 
> 
> 
>  
> --
> Jordan Carter
> 
> Chief Executive 
> InternetNZ
> 
> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> Skype: jordancarter
> 
> A better world through a better Internet 
> 
> <image001.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150323/b6f254a6/attachment.html>