<div dir="ltr">Once the status quoists start stopping reforms, they tend to unhook one boxcar after the other till the train becomes just the engine. In this CCWG, we have moved the enforcement model from the defacto designator model to a legal designator model.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Greg Shatan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" target="_blank">gregshatanipc@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Once the Transparency "asks" start, they tend not to stop. Just hook another boxcar to the train....</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">If we give the Designator (as controlled by SO/ACs) the same inspection rights it would have if it were a member under California law, including the enforcement rights that accompany this, we have "bridged the gap." I can see some logic in also giving this right directly to the SOs and ACs that select voting members of the Board, since these SO/ACs are essentially "designators in fact." Anything more is mission creep.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">For reasons I have stated before, I think the purported distinction between "direct enforcement" and "indirect enforcement" is an intellectual fallacy. Dubbing board recall "indirect enforcement" makes it sound second best, and also implies that the Designator has no meaningful access to litigation. This is incorrect. Dubbing an IRP and enforcement litigation "direct enforcement" and treating as if it were something necessarily superior to board recall (in whole or in relevant part) is also a fantasy. However, if I were lawyer retained by the community and getting paid (rather than a volunteer community member), I would be rubbing my hands at the prospect of IRP and litigation, since I am likely to have 2-4 years of greatly enhanced income as the community battles the issues out with ICANN. Spilling the board, on the other hand, would be a bummer from a revenue point of view, since it faster and more straightforward. I'd probably get a couple dozen hours of counseling fees out of it, max. [Note: In real life, I tend to counsel clients toward pragmatic, goal-oriented and cost-effective solutions, rather than steering them toward the most lucrative option; but even then, stuff happens....]</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg</div></font></span></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Guru Acharya <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gurcharya@gmail.com" target="_blank">gurcharya@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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. <div><div><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Edward Morris <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Hi Chris,</div><div><br></div><div><span style="background-color:rgba(255,255,255,0)">- I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.</span></div><div><br></div><div>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.</div><span><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div><br></div><div>Ed Morris<br><br>Sent from my iPhone</div></span><div><div><div><br>On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Chris Disspain <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank">ceo@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><span style="font-family:'Verdana';font-size:13px;color:rgb(102,102,102)">I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.<div><br></div><div>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.<div><br></div><div><br><div>
<p><br></p>
<p>Cheers,</p>
<p><br></p>
<p>Chris Disspain<span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>Chief Executive Officer</p>
<p>.au Domain Administration Ltd</p>
<p>T: <span><a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111" value="+61383414111" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4111</a></span><span> </span><span>|</span><span> </span>F: <span><a href="tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112" value="+61383414112" target="_blank">+61 3 8341 4112</a></span></p>
<p><span>E:</span><span> <a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au" target="_blank"><span>ceo@auda.org.au</span></a> </span><span>|</span><span> </span><span>W:</span><span> <a href="http://www.auda.org.au/" target="_blank"><span>www.auda.org.au</span></a></span><span> </span></p>
<p>auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator</p>
<p><br></p>
<p><span><b>Important Notice</b></span><span><b> </b></span><b>- </b>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.</p>
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 30 Oct 2015, at 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <<a href="mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org" target="_blank">Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>Matthieu,<br><br>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><br>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><br>Thanks,<br><br>Brett<br><br><br><br>________________________________<br>Brett Schaefer<br>Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs<br>Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy<br>The Heritage Foundation<br>214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE<br>Washington, DC 20002<br><a href="tel:202-608-6097" value="+12026086097" target="_blank">202-608-6097</a><br><a href="http://heritage.org" target="_blank">heritage.org</a><<a href="http://heritage.org/" target="_blank">http://heritage.org/</a>><br><br>On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">egmorris1@toast.net</a><<a href="mailto:egmorris1@toast.net" target="_blank">mailto:egmorris1@toast.net</a>>> wrote:<br><br>Mathieu,<br><br>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.<br><br>Best,<br><br>Ed Morris<br><br><br>Sent from my iPhone<br><br>On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a><<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>>> wrote:<br><br>Dear Colleagues,<br><br>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.<br><br>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><br>- 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><br>- 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><br>- 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><br>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><br>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><br>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><br>Best,<br>Mathieu<br><br>For your reference :<br>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" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2</a><br>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" target="_blank">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><br>page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1.<br>Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:<br>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><br>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.<br><br>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><br>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><br>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.<br><br>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><br>De : <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>> [<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org</a>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy<br>Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58<br>À : Padmini<br>Cc : <a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org</a>><br>Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG<br><br>I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".<br><br>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><br>I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.<br><br>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><br>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.<br><br>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>Kieren<br><br><br><br>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com" target="_blank">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a><<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com" target="_blank">mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>Dear Bruce,<br>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.<br>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.<br>That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been.<br>Warm Regards<br>Padmini<br>Programme Associate, Internet Governance<br>Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India<br><br>Padmini Baruah<br>V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)<br>NLSIU, Bangalore<br><br>On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a><<a href="mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au" target="_blank">mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au</a>>> wrote:<br>Hello Greg,<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"> 6333. The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings<br></blockquote></blockquote>of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be<br>open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any<br>member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to<br>such person's interests as a member.<br><br>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><br>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><br>We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.<br><br>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>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><br>Regards,<br>Bruce Tonkin<br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a>><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>_______________________________________________<br>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></span></div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list</span><br><span><a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a></span><br><span><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a></span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org" target="_blank">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>