<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<br>
Hi,<br>
<br>
In the ATRT2 Final Report, the discussion of Transparency begins on
Page 26.<br>
<br>
ATRT1 had recommended:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Recommendation 7.1: “Commencing immediately,
the Board should promptly<br>
publish all appropriate materials related to decision-making
processes – including<br>
preliminary announcements, briefing materials provided by staff
and others, detailed<br>
Minutes, and where submitted, individual Directors’ statements
relating to significant<br>
decisions. The redaction of materials should be kept to a minimum,
limited to<br>
discussion of existing or threatened litigation and staff issues
such as appointments.”<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Recommendation 8: As soon as possible, but
no later than the start of the March<br>
2011 ICANN meeting, the Board should have a document produced and
published<br>
that clearly defines the limited set of circumstances where
materials may be redacted<br>
and that articulates the risks (if any) associated with
publication of materials. These<br>
rules should be referred to by the Board, General Counsel and
staff when assessing<br>
whether material should be redacted and cited when such a decision
is taken.</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Summary of ICANN’s Assessment of
Implementation<br>
ICANN staff reported to ATRT2 that, as a result of implementation,
it is now standard<br>
operating procedure to post all Board materials, including
rationales for resolutions.<br>
These and other reference materials are archived at<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings">http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings</a>. In response to
ATRT1’s<br>
recommendation, ICANN developed an implementation plan that noted,
in part, the<br>
following:<br>
“[a]s of the 25 January 2011 meeting, staff began including
proposed rationale<br>
statements in Board submissions, addressing the items set forth in
the Affirmation<br>
of Commitments. If the Board does not propose significant
modification to the<br>
draft rationale statements, those draft statements will be posted
with the Approved<br>
Resolutions for each meeting. This practice was instituted on 27
January 2011,<br>
with the posting of the 25 January 2011 Approved Resolutions. The
rationale<br>
statements will be considered final when posted with the Minutes
as approved for<br>
each meeting. The rationale statements are to address the sources
of data and<br>
information, as well as to address community input accepted and
rejected.”<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">With respect to redactions of Board
materials, the implementation plan noted that,<br>
“[w]hile these DIDP (Document Information Disclosure Policy32)
conditions will<br>
remain the baseline for redactions, there is great value in
producing a document to<br>
guide staff and inform the community on the specific issue of
redaction of Board<br>
materials. As evidenced through the very publication of the Board
briefing<br>
materials, ICANN has narrowed the previously-applied scope of its
application of<br>
the conditions for non-disclosure in favor of increased
transparency and<br>
accountability. The document was posted in March 2011. Of note,
beginning<br>
with the 12 December 2010 Board meeting materials, the basis for
each redaction<br>
was set forth on every page where a redaction occurred. A review
of how to best<br>
cite to the circumstances requiring a redaction will continue.”</blockquote>
<br>
ATRT2 decided that implementation of 7.1 had been largely
successful.<br>
ATRT2 indicated that the status with redaction was possibly still
problematic, but difficult to judge given the nature of redactions.<br>
<br>
ATRT2 made several recommendation regrading transparency. Included
are:<br>
<br>
Recommendation #9.4 on Transparency Metric and Reporting<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">9.4. Develop Transparency Metrics and
Reporting<br>
The Board should ensure that as part of its yearly report, ICANN
include, among<br>
other things, but not be limited to:<br>
a. A report on the broad range of Transparency issues with
supporting metrics to<br>
facilitate accountability.<br>
b. A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and
community, are<br>
adhering to a default standard of transparency in all policy,
implementation and<br>
administrative actions; as well as the degree to which all
narratives, redaction, or<br>
other practices used to not disclose information to the ICANN
community are<br>
documented in a transparent manner.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">c. Statistical reporting to include at least
the following elements:<br>
i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy
(DIDP)<br>
process and the disposition of requests.<br>
ii. percentage of redacted-to-unredacted Board briefing materials
released<br>
to the general public.<br>
iii. number and nature of issues that the Board determined should
be<br>
treated confidentially.<br>
iv. other ICANN usage of redaction and other methods to not
disclose<br>
information to the community and statistics on reasons given for
usage of<br>
such methods.<br>
d. A section on employee “Anonymous Hotline” and/or other
whistleblowing<br>
activity, to include metrics on:<br>
i. Reports submitted.<br>
ii. Reports verified as containing issues requiring action.<br>
iii. Reports that resulted in change to ICANN practices.<br>
e. An analysis of the continued relevance and usefulness of
existing transparency<br>
metrics, including<br>
i. Considerations on whether activities are being geared toward
the metrics<br>
(i.e. “teaching to the test”) without contributing toward the goal
of genuine<br>
transparency.<br>
ii. Recommendations for new metrics.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
9.5 on employee transparency and whistleblowing mechanisms<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">9.5. The Board should arrange an audit to
determine the viability of the ICANN<br>
Anonymous Hotline as a whistleblowing mechanism and implement any<br>
necessary improvements.<br>
The professional external audit should be based on the Section 7.1
and<br>
Appendix 5 - Whistleblower Policy of the One World Trust
Independent<br>
Review of 2007 recommendations<br>
(<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/owt-report-final-2007-en.pdf">http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/owt-report-final-2007-en.pdf</a>)
to<br>
establish a viable whistleblower program, including protections
for employees<br>
who use such a program, and any recent developments in areas of
support and<br>
protection for the whistleblower. The professional audit should be
done on a<br>
recurring basis, with the period (annual or bi-annual, for
example) determined<br>
upon recommendation by the professional audit.<br>
The processes for ICANN employee transparency and whistleblowing
should<br>
be made public.</blockquote>
<br>
The Board has, as with will all of ATRT2 recommendations, agreed to
implement these recommendations. <br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 26-Dec-14 11:49, Phil Corwin wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E0F398545@Exchange.sierracorporation.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Thanks Bruce, and glad you found the feedback useful.
And thanks as well for referencing the minutes of the 10/28 Board meeting. That is more detail than I have seen in the past. But the community would still benefit from knowing more about the views expressed by Board members during the discussion, and why Gonzalo Navarro and Mike Silber ultimately voted against the Resolutions.
I agree with your view that " It would certainly be helpful if the CCWG on accountability did articulate what they would like to see in terms of transparency from Board meetings.", and I intend to make that a focus of my participation over coming months. I recognize that certain subjects may not be appropriate for full revelation, and that redaction of the transcript or a simple notation of an omitted portion of the discussion may be acceptable for some subjects.
More challenging will be how to deal with the fact, as you describe it, " that in many cases significant discussion on a controversial topic occurs over several months - with much of the dialogue occurring in Board workshops...In many ways the Board functions like a GNSO or IETF working group - with numerous discussions, before a topic reaches decision. The current chair - Steve Crocker - tries as much as possible to ensure that a Board resolution has matured to the point where it can be approved unanimously." That seems like an efficient way to operate, but it results in a situation where " the community sees the end product, and not the intermediate steps". We don't want to inhibit candid Board discussion and proper extended consideration and deliberation on some matters.
I suspect that there is a middle ground between present Board disclosure practice and a revision that satisfies the community's need for greater understanding of the basis for Board decisions without disrupting or unduly circumscribing candid Board discussion. Let's see what the community can come up with over the course of this CCWG in regard to a procedural reforms that can enhance the transparency base for accountable decision-making.
Best regards,
Philip
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal
Virtualaw LLC
1155 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004
202-559-8597/Direct
202-559-8750/Fax
202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability1-bounces@icann.org">ccwg-accountability1-bounces@icann.org</a> [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability1-bounces@icann.org">mailto:ccwg-accountability1-bounces@icann.org</a>] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2014 4:01 AM
To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ccwg-accountability1@icann.org">ccwg-accountability1@icann.org</a>
Subject: Re: [Area 1] Sub Group 1 - Preliminary Draft
Hello Phil,
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> hopefully the final recommendations will be so broadly supported within the community that Board cherry-picking will be limited or nonexistent.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Yes - that is the Board's hope also.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> What is most concerning is that the community has little or any information by which to judge how the Board has reached difficult decisions on public interest matters in the past. As you note in regard to the .XXX decision, "Several directors spent considerable time preparing their own personal statements on that matter that were delivered in the public forum." Similarly, I remember a vigorous public debate and statements when the Board voted to let the new gTLD program proceed and accept applications. But we no longer have public Board meetings, and the materials released pertaining to Board meetings are quite opaque regarding how decisions are reached or whether dissents took place, and of course we have no transcripts of Board meetings or access to other relevant communications related to Board decision-making. I do note that the October 16th resolution further states that a rationale will be provided for any Board rejection of CCWG recommendations!
, and a
further dialo
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""> gue initiated, but that is still inferior to being able to witness or at least read the full Board debate on such matters.
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> It has been widely recognized that transparency is a fundamental requirement for accountability, yet the transparency of the Board's decision-making process is greatly lacking at present. I know that view prevails within the Commercial Stakeholders Group, and my perception is that other parts of the community share it as well. It is my hope that this CCWG process will lead to much greater transparency in that area and that the Board will recognize that such transparency is very much in the global public interest.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
That is good feedback. I was at one time the Chair of the DNSO and then later chair of the GNSO. Over the time I was chair we put in place transparency steps including making recordings of the meetings available publicly and also transcripts. In my time there was only about two people in the community that ever listed to the audio recordings - but in principle they were available to everyone. I personally support that approach in principle, but it is not yet a Board view.
I just reviewed the minutes of the Board meeting of 28 Oct 2014:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2014-10-28-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/minutes-2014-10-28-en</a>
The minutes state with respect to moving the meeting location in Feb 2015:
" The Board engaged in an intense conversation on the topic, with some Board members noting their personal preference that the meeting proceed in Marrakech as scheduled, given that it is difficult to know what the situation will be in Marrakech in February. However, even with a personal preference to keep the meeting location, there are risks to proceeding with that decision that may require the meeting to be postponed."
The minutes also note that the decision was not unanimous:
" Twelve Board members voted in favor of Resolutions 2014.10.28.02, 2014.10.28.03, 2014.10.28.04, 2014.10.28.05, 2014.10.28.06 and 2014.10.28.07. Gonzalo Navarro and Mike Silber were opposed to the Resolutions. Markus Kummer abstained from voting on the resolutions. Kuo-Wei Wu was unavailable to vote. The Resolutions carried."
In that meeting I recall that nearly every Board member spoke on the topic - some in favour of moving the location, and some in favour of keeping it in the original location. There were well articulated views that could have been made public in my own personal view.
It would certainly be helpful if the CCWG on accountability did articulate what they would like to see in terms of transparency from Board meetings. Note however - that in many cases significant discussion on a controversial topic occurs over several months - with much of the dialogue occurring in Board workshops (for example the Board holds at least two face-to-face workshops during the year, and also meets on the weekend prior to the ICNAN public meeting week, as well as during the week in workshop format). In many ways the Board functions like a GNSO or IETF working group - with numerous discussions, before a topic reaches decision. The current chair - Steve Crocker - tries as much as possible to ensure that a Board resolution has matured to the point where it can be approved unanimously. I agree however that the community sees the end product, and not the intermediate steps.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1</a>
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.avg.com">www.avg.com</a>
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8773 - Release Date: 12/20/14
_______________________________________________
Ccwg-accountability1 mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org">Ccwg-accountability1@icann.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-accountability1</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>