[CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

Tue Mar 24 14:23:32 UTC 2015

Hi,

I think we should always try to avoid limiting the role of keeping ICANN
accountable to an individual/entity. The entire community rather should
hold ICANN accountable, that can happen by putting in place mechanism that
ensure transparency in access to data with improve communication between
the community and ICANN staff (board).

That is why I will disagree with Kieren on having a person/entity keeping
ICANN accountable financially. What is important is that community
participate in selecting audit firm(preferred feature) and the subsequent
audit report accessible to the community for review and query if required.

Regards
sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 24 Mar 2015 14:30, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:

> So I think the answer in this case would not be to try to decide a new
> audit mechanism but instead create a role where someone suitably qualified
> is allowed to compel production of financial records as an independent
> financial reviewer.
>
> A sort of GAO role for ICANN. This person/entity would then have the
> ability and flexibility to keep ICANN in check financially.
>
>
> Kieren
>
> -
> [sent through phone]
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>
>> That’s why I called it a “forensic audit” – it’s a practice I’m familiar
>> with that I’ve heard go by that name, but I am comfortable with “deep
>> dive.”   I am not asking after the annual financials for the last 5 years –
>> but a deeper examination of line-item expenditures and such.  At the top
>> level, the financials ICANN releases which talk about thinks like
>> administrative expenses have much less detail than I am suggesting we
>> should be interested in – either as part of the CCWG’s review or as part of
>> a longer-term WS2 project for the “Community Council” (of what ever form it
>> takes) to undertake to see where the expenditures are going on a more
>> granular basis.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>>
>> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 5:32 PM
>> *To:* Carrie Devorah
>> *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
>>
>>
>>
>> The financial auditing process is a highly-defined and regulated
>> process.  A number of reforms were introduced after Enron, to avoid more
>> Enrons.  Within the definition and restrictions of what a financial audit
>> is, I think we can assume that BDO is doing an appropriate, professional
>> job.  BDO will follow the same "playbook" no matter who the client is.  I
>> don't think it's fruitful for this group to pursue global reforms of the
>> financial audit process, so I suggest we not pursue inquiries that assume
>> the process is per se corrupt.  I also don't think it's fruitful to
>> redesign the standard financial audit.  That said, there's probably valid
>> accountability questions along the lines of "How does the community gain
>> transparency and insight into the audit process?" "Are the current methods
>> for doing so sufficient?
>>
>>
>>
>> More interesting, and really a different inquiry is the "audit" proposed
>> by Paul and alluded to by Kieren, which for the sake of clarity we probably
>> shouldn't call an "audit" at all (since that's what brought this thread
>> into the weeds in the first place).  I'm not sure if there's a proper term
>> for it.  I'll just call it the "deep dive."
>>
>>
>>
>> What would this deep dive consist of?
>>
>>
>>
>> Is it limited to financial matters?
>>
>>
>>
>> What are we hoping to look at?
>>
>>
>>
>> What powers are part of this deep dive?  (Note: I think financial
>> auditors don't really have any "power" -- they can raise red flags and make
>> recommendations, but they can't force the client to eat its spinach.  I
>> think the worst they can do is walk away.  But this is not really my field,
>> so I might be wrong about that.)
>>
>>
>>
>> How does it differ from the ATRT reviews?
>>
>>
>>
>> Just a few thoughts....
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Greg
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:32 PM, <carriedev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   The independent auditor does not work for free. You made my point.
>> They work for the entity paying them. Hence, if you are working for the
>> entity paying you then you are not independent, you are a contractor.
>>
>>
>>
>> FYI, I caught this article. How odd swifts people get the special access?
>>
>>
>> http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/taylor-swift-bought-up-all-your-dot-porn-urls/111297?utm_content=post5-title&utm_source=prnewser&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter20150323
>>
>>
>>
>> Carrie
>>
>>  Www.Centerforcopyrightintegrity.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:07 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <
>> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
>>
>>  I agree.  My point (unlike Carrie’s) is not about the independence, but
>> about the lack of depth currently ….
>>
>>
>>
>> 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>
>>
>> <image001.jpg>
>> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
>> <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 8:56 AM
>> *To:* Carrie Devorah
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org; Paul Rosenzweig
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
>>
>>
>>
>> I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your
>> claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is
>> paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being
>> paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the
>> same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the
>> report.
>>
>> I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this
>> process.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> sent from Google nexus 4
>> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
>>
>>  On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>   The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the
>> audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that
>> audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results
>> they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of
>> the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related
>> affiliates and associations too.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Sincerely
>>
>>  Carrie Devorah
>>
>>  Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>
>> On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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>
>>
>> <image002.jpg>
>> <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
>> <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>
>>
>> <image003.jpg>
>> <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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>  *Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*
>>
>> *Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*
>>
>> *666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*
>>
>> *Direct*  212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022
>>
>> *Fax*  212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428
>>
>> *gsshatan at lawabel.com <gsshatan at lawabel.com>*
>>
>> *ICANN-related: gregshatanipc at gmail.com <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>*
>>
>> *www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150324/efbc40f9/attachment.html>