[CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting

[Salaets, Ken]

I believe you are both in agreement.  The further advantage of building in such rights is that they wouldn't be dependent upon California law, which of course can change, or even the legal domicile of ICANN, should that eventually change.

With respect to whether we can count on 'process improvements' to achieve the desired enhancements of ICANN accountability, it brings to mind a Reagan adage: 'Trust but verify.'  If indeed the board is willing to implement such improvements in a timely manner, then the existence of such community rights is inconsequential because they won't need to be exercised.  On the other hand, the availability of such rights of enforcement is the insurance policy that said improvements will actually be implemented.

These rights need to be fully constituted before the transition, i.e., while the community retains certain leverage and persuasion.  What happens after the transition is anyone's guess, realistically, but existing rights of enforcement will add a significant degree of predictability and trust to the process.

 Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:36 PM
To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting

I would argue that transparency must be broader. As a member, the right to inspect would be backed by U.S. law. As a designator, it would be enforced by incorporation into the bylaws. Thus, the lesser legal standing should be augmented by greater means and avenues to examine ICANN's activities, which would be instrumental in making the case to the community that ICANN is acting contrary to the wishes of the community and, thereby, spurring action up the enforcement escalation path.

Yes, I now have posting privileges. I hope we all do not come to regret it. :-)



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

-----Original Message-----
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts
Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:25 PM
To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting

If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily.

(Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . )


Nigel Roberts

On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
> Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
>
> As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes.
> However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
>
> Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs  as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget .
> This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue.
> Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray  and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary  expenditure escalation  ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task.
> Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Buckingham
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of 
> Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17
> To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
>
> 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
> 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
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community