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

Schaefer, Brett Brett.Schaefer at heritage.org
Mon Aug 15 15:08:29 UTC 2016


Kavouss,

Thank you for re-raising this issue, which appears to have been lost.

Xavier, I also asked for additional clarifications that, I think, need to be answered to inform he work of the Transparency Working Group in WS2. Specifically, in your response, you said that “ICANN enters into confidentiality obligations as a result of bilateral negotiations with vendors” and that they prevent ICANN from publicly disclosing further details than those provided in your e-mail.


  *   Would this confidentiality obligation prevent disclosure through the DIDP process?


  *   Would this confidentiality obligation prevent individual Directors from obtaining this information through their Right of Inspection?


  *   Would this confidentiality obligation prevent an individual Decisional Participant from obtaining this information if they requested it under their Right of Inspection of  ICANN accounting books and records pursuant to the provisions of Section 6333 of the CCC?


  *   Would this confidentiality obligation prevent the Empowered Community from obtaining the information through its right to launch a third-party, independent investigation if three Decisional Participants determine that there is a credible allegation that ICANN has committed fraud or that there has been a gross mismanagement of ICANN’s resources?

Finally, I did not see where you clarified whether ICANN engaged vendors to perform similar tasks – “lobbying” or educational/engagement – that may not have been captured by the Congressional database, such as at the state level in the U.S. (particularly California), the U.S. Executive Branch, or in non-US countries.

Best,

Brett


From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Xavier J. Calvez
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

Dear Xavier
I have sent you the following question to which I have not received any reply
Perhaps you have been very busy and overlooked my questions
I still awaiting for clarifications
Regards
KAVOUSS
Copy of questions raised many weeks ago
Dear Xavier
Thank you for all info.
Pls clarify the following
1.What is prfessional advice :;this advice is given to whom ,on what subject and why is needed
2. what is lobbing here. who lobbies for whom and on what and the need for such lobbies
3 Who checks and confirm  the legal costs by three legal entities, who decide that there was a need for such legal advice and who checks and control ther tme spent..Many of these advice were repeatation of previous adfvices and just cut and p[aste from one advice to others .Please review all advices given from the begining of 2015 till now
We neeed all these detailed info .
Regards
Kavouss

2016-08-15 16:25 GMT+02:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org<mailto:avri at apc.org>>:


On 15-Aug-16 06:43, parminder wrote:
> I just said that an Antigua based betting company will be ill-advised
> to try to take up a closed gTLD in its name and conduct its business
> under it, because it is liable to be seized whenever US authorities
> want to do so (by their jurisdiction control over ICANN) . Same is
> true of a drug company, say from India, planning global e-com trade of
> generic drugs. It will also be ill-advised to risk a closed gTLD in
> its name to do such global business, for the same reason.

I thought that this has to do with the jurisdiction of the registry and
the rregistrar itself.  And while it may cause concern because there are
not as many registries and registrars in non US jurisdictions, there are
some and could be more in time. It may also mean that greater efforts
should be taken to inform people of the jurisdiction their registration
is under and whose laws they are subject to, but I do not see how the
location of ICANN main office or place of incorproation affects this issue.

In any case aren't the issues relatiing to the jurisdiction of
registries and registrars  among the ones being discussed in the Juris
sub group?

But the conversation has been quite far ranging so could well be missing
the point of the disagreement.

avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus<https://www.avast.com/antivirus>


________________________________
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/>
_______________________________________________
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<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/20160815/6c293920/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list