[CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Mathieu Weill
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Nov 2 11:02:40 UTC 2015
Dear Colleagues,
It was an oversight on my side to omit to quote the agreed definition of WS1
/ WS2 issues and this may have created some confusion in this thread.
This is on §7 of the 2nd report which I quote below :
Work Stream 1 mechanisms were defined as those that, when in place or
committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any
accountability mechanism to further enhance ICANN's accountability would be
implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were
to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest
of ICANN as a corporate entity.
As we move closer to our 3rd report, I believe this test remains quite
relevant.
Best
Mathieu Weill
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de
Padmini
Envoyé : vendredi 30 octobre 2015 12:50
À : Schaefer, Brett
Cc : accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on
Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
I'm also completely unclear on why the call was taken to include so many
important transparency issues only in WS2. Since I am quite new to this
whole ecosystem, could someone please enlighten me as to why this decision
was taken, and by whom?
Regards
Padmini Baruah
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
NLSIU, Bangalore
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org> wrote:
Chris,
Sounds like you agree with my summary -- you are OK with the right of
inspection, but not additional transparency measures.
I would not describe the additional transparency measures as additional
rights, though. Essentially, it boils down to improved DIDP with an appeals
process for denials and disclosure of ICANN's government contacts ton
fluency policy and expenditures for that purpose.
Best,
Brett
________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Chris Disspain
<ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au>> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already
agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of
inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of
consensus.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112
<tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112>
E: ceo at auda.org.au<mailto:ceo at auda.org.au> | W:
www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/>
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential
and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named
addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use,
disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by
mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett
<Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org>> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that
there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to
inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency
provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount,
others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I
suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
Brett
________________________________
Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security
and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097
heritage.org<http://heritage.org><http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris
<egmorris1 at toast.net<mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net><mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net>>
wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs
for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their
rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and
inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated,
with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old
reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work
stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on
list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way
forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done
right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill
<mathieu.weill at afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr>>
wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this
issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be
acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the
content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole
Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency
could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by
adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to
inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public
disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of
provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see
below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del
Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for
transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have
agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal
conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to
set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a
transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the
question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection
rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the
level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already
be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have
submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best,
Mathieu
For your reference :
Full transcript -->
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2%0d%0aSlide-deck>
&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2
Slide-deck -->
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1
<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2>
&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1.
Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:
To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and
operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to
ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal
documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a
justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with
ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board
for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team,
ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure
by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is
not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or
information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a
ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The
confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which
documents and information are classified, including a description of the
levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to,
and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a
Review Team may request access to documents and information that are
designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of
any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to
sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate
and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly
recognized Review Teams.
De :
accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de
Kieren McCarthy
Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58
À : Padmini
Cc :
accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer
the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked
for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is
almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff
behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce
that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in
the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being
jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying
about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and
insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be
done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce
about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial
reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini
<pdmnbaruah at gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah at gmail.com>>
wrote:
Dear Bruce,
As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses
that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly
different, and have been posted earlier.
While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are
publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the
information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are
provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry
audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in
cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response
contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process
in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the
basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for
non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards
documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the
information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway.
That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how
effective those disclosures actually have been.
Warm Regards
Padmini
Programme Associate, Internet Governance
Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin
<Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>>
wrote:
Hello Greg,
6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings
of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be
open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any
member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to
such person's interests as a member.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently
that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we
could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some
personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards
as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly
financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question
the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal
to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case
Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff
etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once
per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g
concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I
think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that
represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor
to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the
community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial
accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for
confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have.
I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly
been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome
suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org><mailto: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<mailto: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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151102/1de9f0a9/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list