<html>
<body>
Keith, I did not say I did not support such access to information. I
support it STRONGLY. WS1 was to put powers in place to get other things
we need ad WS2 was designed to take advantage of that. If we can get
something in WS1, great. I have publicly supported a number of immediate
openness on a number of things including (but not limited to) board
meetings. What I was objecting to was the theory that because membership
gave us a particular feature, it automatically had to be included in WS1
now.<br><br>
Adding too much to WS1 at this point could kill out already very tight
timeline.<br><br>
Alan <br><br>
<br>
At 30/10/2015 10:31 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">I disagree with Alan. It is not
mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board
to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable
visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making.
This is part of the evolution of our reference model. <br><br>
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at
the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.<br><br>
Regards,<br>
Keith <br><br>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg
<<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>
> wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">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. <br>
-- <br>
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.<br><br>
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain
<<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:
<dl>
<dd>I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. <br>
<dd>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. <br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>Cheers,<br>
<br>
<dd>Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer<br>
<dd>.au Domain Administration Ltd<br><br>
<dd>T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112<br><br>
<dd>E: <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a> | W:
<a href="http://www.auda.org.au/">http://www.auda.org.au</a> <br><br>
<dd>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator<br>
<br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett
<<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org">
Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:<br><br>
<dd>Matthieu,<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>Thanks,<br>
<dd>Brett<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>________________________________
<dd>Brett Schaefer
<dd>Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory
Affairs
<dd>Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National
Security and Foreign Policy
<dd>The Heritage Foundation
<dd>214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
<dd>Washington, DC 20002
<dd>202-608-6097
<dd><a href="http://heritage.org">http://heritage.org</a>
<<a href="http://heritage.org/" eudora="autourl">
http://heritage.org/</a>><br>
<dd>On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris
<<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net">egmorris1@toast.net</a>
<<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" eudora="autourl">
mailto:egmorris1@toast.net</a>>> wrote:<br><br>
<dd>Mathieu,<br>
<dd>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 measur ed 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.<br>
<dd>Best,<br>
<dd>Ed Morris<br>
<br>
<dd>Sent from my iPhone<br>
<dd>On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill
<<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
<<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" eudora="autourl">
mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>> wrote:<br>
<dd>Dear Colleagues,<br>
<dd>First of all many thanks to all of you wh o 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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
<dd>- 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.<br>
<dd>- 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)<br>
<dd>- 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.<br>
<dd>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.”<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>Best,
<dd>Mathieu<br>
<dd>For your reference :
<dd>Full transcript -->
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2</a>
<dd>Slide-deck -->
<a href="https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2">
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2</a>
<br>
<dd>page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1.
<dd>Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review
Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for
disclosur e 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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the
provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team
may be asked to sign.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>De :
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>>
[<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org">
mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] De la part
de Kieren McCarthy
<dd>Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58
<dd>À : Padmini
<dd>Cc :
<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org">
accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>>
<dd>Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for
CCWG<br>
<dd>I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being
"able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly
available".<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the
staff behaves to those outside the corporation.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>If I was on the Board and I heard that th e 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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br>
<br><br>
<dd>Kieren<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini
<<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>
<<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com" eudora="autourl">
mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:
<dd>Dear Bruce,
<dd>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.
<dd>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.
<dd>That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms
of how effective those disclosures actually have been.
<dd>Warm Regards
<dd>Padmini
<dd>Programme Associate, Internet Governance
<dd>Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India<br><br>
<dd>Padmini Baruah
<dd>V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
<dd>NLSIU, Bangalore<br>
<dd>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au">
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>
<<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>> wrote:
<dd>Hello Greg,<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<dd>6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of
proceedings</blockquote></blockquote>
<dd>of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be
<dd>open to inspection upon the written dem and on the corporation of
any
<dd>member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to
<dd>such person's interests as a member.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>We do use an ex ternal auditor to validate our financials and
processes once per year.<br>
<dd>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.<br><br>
<dd>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.<br>
<dd>Regards ,
<dd>Bruce Tonkin<br>
<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<dd>_______________________________________________
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</blockquote><br><br>
<hr>
<pre>
<dd>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
<dd><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>
<dd>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
</pre>
</dl>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" eudora="autourl">
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>