<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0"><tr><td valign="top"><div>The external whistleblower organizations can go directly to the public after the crime of governmental entities pressuring individual ICANN members was substantiated by federal law enforcement. <br /><br />The resulting public outcry, congressional hearings etc. would therefore be a deterrant to unlawful occurrences ever happening in the first place. And whistleblower processes already exist as part of many governments, therefore it is not a bizarre suggestion in my opinion, actually it is a good mechanism for adding an additional outlet for ICANN members post-transition. Bad actors would think twice therefore about trying to pressure either the ICANN board or anyone else, with more than just internal processes available.<br /><br />Ron</div></td></tr></table> <div id="_origMsg_">
<div>
<br />
<div>
<div style="font-size:0.9em">
<hr size="1">
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">From:</span>
</b>
Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To:</span>
</b>
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject:</span>
</b>
Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials <br>
<b>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Sent:</span>
</b>
Wed, Oct 7, 2015 2:21:13 PM <br>
</div>
<br>
<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td valign="top">What's the point of a whistleblowing process if there's no one with a <br clear="none">big stick to listen to the whistle?<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="yqt9072426187" id="yqtfd19708"><br clear="none">On 07/10/15 15:01, Ron Baione wrote:<br clear="none">> An idea I had was to include in the process some sort of mandatory monthly collaboration with a secure external whistleblower process. It is perceived that ICANN members would be somewhat more suceptible to unlawful pressure by governments or inter-governmental entities post-transition.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Having an external process might help gain public and U.S. government trust in the transition and accountability process. Whistle-blower websites and reporters exist around the globe, and have been the subject of much controversy, but in a multistakeholder controlled external
whistleblower process, you could have:<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 1) A monthly process where a conjunction of 60 legit and diverse privacy groups are placed in a pool of availability<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 2) 5 privacy organizations would then be chosen at random each month, by algorithm or out of a hat to act as possible external whistleblowers for the ICANN community<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 3) Each of the 60 privacy groups must sign a non-disclosure contract with ICANN regarding the provision of their services at any given time<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 4) The names of the 60 privacy groups would be publicly known, published on January 1st each year,<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 5) It would not be lawful for those groups to reveal if they are that monthly representative, or risk losing their incentive to participate in the process, an jncentive which would be
non-monetary.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 6) The incentive would be, i suppose, the credibility gained for their organization by being considered worthy of external whistleblower stewardship<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 7) An ICANN led review process of which privacy groups are chosen and retained year over year would be conducted by the CCWG.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 8) Since the model is for the creation of a a random selection process, groups could theoretically serve 12 times a year, therefore a limit on number of months a single organization could serve a whistleblower function would be capped at 8 months of service.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> 9) There would be a code-of-conduct signed by each organization allowing for automatic vote by CCWG on removal from the pool of organizations of an organization or retinment, for example, if an organization for failed to renew or delayed its renewal
of its local registration or enacted or amended their bylaws, failed to submit requested information in a timely fashion, or acted in a way that was contrary to supporting a free and open internet.<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> Ron<br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> _______________________________________________<br clear="none">> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br clear="none">><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br
clear="none"><a shape="rect" ymailto="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" href="javascript:return">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br clear="none"></div></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
</div>
</div>