[CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)

Fri Oct 30 11:42:06 UTC 2015

Hi Chris,

To get a better sense of why you would be concerned about "broader"
enforcement rights, could you please spell them out? What kind of mission
creep are we talking about here - would you make the case for some
information to be exempt from disclosure requirements and what would they
be?

Best,
Arun

-- 
Head, Cyber Initiative
Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi
http://amsukumar.tumblr.com
+91-9871943272

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Chris Disspain <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 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
>
> E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: 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>
> 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/>
>
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net<
> mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net <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 <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&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&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
> <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> [
> mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <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
> <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 <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
> <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
> <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<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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20151030/77cef022/attachment.html>