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

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Wed Oct 7 21:15:08 UTC 2015 

Nothing is inevitable, except death and taxes.

And with cryogenics and a great accountant, maybe not even those.

On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 4:20 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c51425b3/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list