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

Fri Oct 30 17:09:04 UTC 2015

As a person who does not belong to any SO or AC, I strongly oppose only
empowering SOs and ACs with the right to inspect or any such power related
to transparency. The names policy affects the global community and many of
us are not members of any SO or AC. The right to inspection/ or any right
to transparency should be available to the global community even if the
requesting individual is unaffiliated to ICANN. Community discussions or
bottom-up processes wherein unaffiliated persons are not allowed access to
information is an unacceptable power structure. This is why DIDP reforms
need to be an essential part of WS1 transparency reforms.

On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net> wrote:

> Hi Chris,
>
> - I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and
> ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
>
> Thanks for this. We're in agreement, including I presume for a reasonably
> high level of consensus amongst the SO's and AC's to use the Inspection
> right. Really good to see.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM, 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
> <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
> <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
> <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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20151030/99a324d0/attachment.html>