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

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Fri Oct 30 14:17:44 UTC 2015 

Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue.  To add it now is mission creap. 
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, 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 <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> 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>> 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>> 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>
>[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>
>> 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>> 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>>
>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>
>> 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/20151030/278b683b/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list