[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

Mon Mar 23 20:00:24 UTC 2015

My 2 cents:

I think the audit component is very similar to the existing accountability
mechanisms in that it exists and, on paper at least, looks as though ICANN
is fulfilling its transparency and accountability obligations.

But in the same way the DIDP document disclosure policy exists but never
produces anything that ICANN does not wish to produce.

In the same way the Reconsideration Committee cannot actually reconsider
anything but just check whether a policy has been followed.

In the same way that the Ombudsman is tightly constrained in what he can
consider and what he is allowed to recommend and publish.

In the same way that the Whistleblower policy does not provide an
independent or anonymous process to report concerns.

And in the same way that the Independent Review Process is not really
independent (ICANN decides on the panelists) and does not really review
decisions (it can only decide if an existing decision broke the rules).

I suspect that the auditing process is the same. The auditors do the job as
best they can within the constraints they are under.

It is in the rules and how they are applied and who gets to decide both
those issues, that the actual usefulness of an audit lives.

I have little doubt that the audit, as it is currently constructed, is run
perfectly professionally.

However I agree with Paul that to bring an appropriate level of
transparency and accountability to ICANN it is likely necessary to revisit
and greatly expand the breadth and depth of the current auditing process.

Kieren

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

> Thanks.   I did mean something more, but I appreciate the pointer …
>
> P
>
>
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <paul.rosenzweigesq 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
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>
>
>
>
> *From:* Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner at icann.org]
> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 5:30 AM
> *To:* Paul Rosenzweig; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Arun Sukumar'
>
> *Cc:* 'Accountability Cross Community'
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
>
>
>
> 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
> <paul.rosenzweigesq 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
> <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=19&Itemid=9>
>
>
> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>
>
>
>
> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz
> <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 <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
>
> Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance
> <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
>
> 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 *
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c5638116/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14798 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/c5638116/image003.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 14795 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150323/c5638116/image002.jpg>