[CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

[John Curran]

On Aug 8, 2016, at 3:45 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
> ICANN by its function is a public governance body, if it is a private body by its form and incorporation that is just an anomaly. All the discussions/ activities regarding the transition process etc are basically aimed at addressing this anomaly, in the practical ways possible. 
> ICANN should therefore be subject to same level of transparency requirements as say the government of the US or of India is subject. Quoting 'standard commercial practices' cuts no ice. Government of India will not be able to give this response to a right to information query.  ...
> 
Parminder - 

    ICANN by its function is not a "public governance body” - it is actually a coordination 
    body that supports the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s various identifier 
    systems.

    This does not in any way impinge on your main point: i.e. that ICANN should operate
    under very high transparency requirements – only that it should do so because such
    transparency was a basic tenet of its establishment and remains so to this day.

Thanks!
/John

p.s.  my views alone (and perhaps that of the ICANN bylaws, to some extent…) 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160808/5c40258b/attachment.html>