[CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials

Kieren McCarthy kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
Wed Oct 7 20:20:52 UTC 2015 

I think the value of raising issues that are outside the current
"workstream" - for me at least - is to remind ourselves that this is an
organization that not only has numerous, significant flaws but one that,
for whatever reason, refuses to tackle its numerous, significant flaws,
even when special groups are created to identify them in detail, do so, and
provide clear recommendations for improvement that are then pushed away.

When this group starts its inevitable decline into deciding what it can do
without in order to appease the board and to be seen as being responsible /
reaching a workable compromise, it should do so in the full knowledge that
it is giving away the community's ability to change that dynamic and so
tackle the many problems that ICANN continually fails to address, possibly
forever.


Kieren


On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> While addressing ICANN's whistle blower policy is important to our work, I
> thought we had put this issue in Work Stream 2 quite awhile ago.
>
> I would like to know, however, what kind of board oversight there has been
> of ICANN's whistleblower program to date.
>
> Best,
> Robin
>
> On Oct 7, 2015, at 10:32 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>
> > hi,
> >
> > I agree, the whistleblower issue in on the ATRT2 list of recommendations
> > and the next step is a outside audit of ICANN processes for this.
> > Followed by remediation as required. From ATRT2 Final Report:
> >
> >> 9.5. The Board should arrange an audit to determine the viability of
> >> the ICANN
> >> Anonymous Hotline as a whistleblowing mechanism and implement any
> >> necessary improvements.
> >
> > I do not see this as a WS1 requirement in any way.
> >
> > avri
> > (with atrt hat on.)
> >
> > On 07-Oct-15 13:16, James Gannon wrote:
> >> I’m sorry but Im going to reiterate, a new whistleblower program is
> >> not an NTIA defined criteria, is not a community power and we have
> >> enough on our plate for our current discussions.
> >>
> >> Is this a great potential idea for WS2 and the
> >> staff/so/ac/accountability piece? For sure and I would think that WP3
> >> (I think that’s the staff so/ac/accountability one) would be very open
> >> to hearing these ideas.
> >>
> >> But for the moment, before Dublin we have an immense amount of work to
> >> do on fundamental issues and conflicts and I don’t think that we can
> >> spare time for additional work.
> >>
> >> -jg
> >>
> >> From: Ron Baione
> >> Date: Wednesday 7 October 2015 at 6:03 p.m.
> >> To: James Gannon, "kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
> >> <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>", "nigel at channelisles.net
> >> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>",
> >> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October -
> >> Shared Materials
> >>
> >> Again, That whistleblower process is internal, not external, the
> >> company is involved directly in the decision process you described.
> >>
> >> And remember, what you described is the Industry standard across high
> >> risk companies that are not multistakeholder and with different
> >> responsibilities.
> >>
> >> Spending time developing my proposed external process is in fact
> >> fulfilling a solution to stated US Government NTIA post-transition
> >> security mandates as stated by the NTIA's requirments to their
> >> accepting the transition. Basically, They want to know if ICANN is
> >> going to have the processes in place for this sort of thing, and its
> >> usually the first question Congress asks. "What about foreign
> >> governments, is the process secure?".
> >>
> >> The US Government will never approve the transition without knowing
> >> ICANN has every tool necessary to prevent foreign government pressure,
> >> and it should be a top issue, with an external whistleblower process
> >> officially drafted asap, or at least have the idea proposed in some
> >> facet.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *From: *James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> >> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>;
> >> *To: *Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
> >> <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>>; Nigel Roberts
> >> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>;
> >> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> >> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>;
> >> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October
> >> - Shared Materials
> >> *Sent: *Wed, Oct 7, 2015 4:33:04 PM
> >>
> >> While I won’t comment on the internal side of things I just want to
> >> note that an external compliance/whistleblower/reporting hotline which
> >> runs through a questionnaire and then gives the report back to the
> >> company is pretty industry standard and considered best practise
> >> across high risk industries.
> >>
> >> Whats important is what happens once the report is given over to the
> >> company.
> >>
> >> But given the work that we have ahead of us on fundamental issues I
> >> worry that spending cycles on such a small targeted issue might be
> >> time better spent on other matters, just my 2c.
> >>
> >> -jg
> >>
> >> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> >> <javascript:return>> on behalf of Kieren McCarthy
> >> Date: Wednesday 7 October 2015 at 5:27 p.m.
> >> To: Nigel Roberts, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> >> <javascript:return>"
> >> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October -
> >> Shared Materials
> >>
> >> The current whistleblower process is far worse than that. For one, the
> >> entire process is a hotline to a company that reports directly back to
> >> ICANN. That company receives a complaint and then takes it straight to
> >> ICANN and asks ICANN for what to do next. This is not hearsay, it is
> >> what happened to one person that actually used the process (and it
> >> wasn't me). The company's first question was to ask what their name
> >> was. They asked that I'd they gave it, would it be given to ICANN. The
> >> answer was yes. The individual heard nothing about their complaint for
> >> a while. Then the company got back: ICANN had decided not to progress
> >> with it, so it was considered closed. In other words, the
> >> whistleblower program is a complete fraud completely determined and
> >> run by ICANN's legal team. ICANN refuses to provides any details of
> >> this program (and no wonder) and that even extends to basic stats. The
> >> only other person that I know used the program was fired shortly
> >> afterwards. I understand they gave their name to the company believing
> >> it would be confidential. When ICANN was quizzed on the program, it
> >> had the audacity to argue that the low level of use of the
> >> whistleblower program showed that there weren't any concerns
> >> internally. It's doesn't take a genius to realize that keeping your
> >> mouth shut is preferable to being fired and having the issue you were
> >> complaining about brushed under the carpet. Kieren
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:21 AM Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> >> <javascript:return>> wrote:
> >>
> >>    What's the point of a whistleblowing process if there's no one with a
> >>    big stick to listen to the whistle?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>    On 07/10/15 15:01, Ron Baione wrote:
> >>> An idea I had was to include in the process some sort of
> >>    mandatory monthly collaboration with a secure external
> >>    whistleblower process.  It is perceived that ICANN members would
> >>    be somewhat more suceptible to unlawful pressure by governments or
> >>    inter-governmental entities post-transition.
> >>>
> >>> Having an external process might help gain public and U.S.
> >>    government trust in the transition and accountability process.
> >>    Whistle-blower websites and reporters exist around the globe, and
> >>    have been the subject of much controversy, but in a
> >>    multistakeholder controlled external whistleblower process, you
> >>    could have:
> >>>
> >>> 1)  A monthly process where a conjunction of 60 legit and
> >>    diverse privacy groups are placed in a pool of availability
> >>>
> >>> 2) 5 privacy organizations would then be chosen at random each
> >>    month, by algorithm or out of a hat to act as possible external
> >>    whistleblowers for the ICANN community
> >>>
> >>> 3) Each of the 60 privacy groups must sign a non-disclosure
> >>    contract with ICANN regarding the provision of their services at
> >>    any given time
> >>>
> >>> 4) The names of the 60 privacy groups would be publicly known,
> >>    published on January 1st each year,
> >>>
> >>> 5) It would not be lawful for those groups to reveal if they are
> >>    that monthly representative, or risk losing their incentive to
> >>    participate in the process, an jncentive which would be non-monetary.
> >>>
> >>> 6) The incentive would be, i suppose, the credibility gained for
> >>    their organization by being considered worthy of external
> >>    whistleblower stewardship
> >>>
> >>> 7) An ICANN led review process of which privacy groups are
> >>    chosen and retained year over year would be conducted by the CCWG.
> >>>
> >>> 8) Since the model is for the creation of a a random selection
> >>    process, groups could theoretically serve 12 times a year,
> >>    therefore a limit on number of months a single organization could
> >>    serve a whistleblower function would be capped at 8 months of
> service.
> >>>
> >>> 9) There would be a code-of-conduct signed by each organization
> >>    allowing for automatic vote by CCWG on removal from the pool of
> >>    organizations of an organization or retinment, for example, if an
> >>    organization for failed to renew or delayed its renewal of its
> >>    local registration or enacted or amended their bylaws, failed to
> >>    submit requested information in a timely fashion, or acted in a
> >>    way that was contrary to supporting a free and open internet.
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return>
> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >>>
> >>    _______________________________________________
> >>    Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >>    Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return>
> >>    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
> >
> >
> > ---
> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151007/5b644416/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list