[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

The problem with staff redaction and transparency is one that continues
to plague ICANN.  And is something that makes trust harder.  Several
reviews, including the ATRT1 & 2 have tried to do something about this. 
And while there is some more transparency regarding the Board, we are
not making much headway with the Staff.  Or perhaps it is the Board that
has not been able, or allowed, to translate recommendations of
transparency into instructions to the staff.

One thing that we hoped would help in the quest was the annual reporting
on metrics for transparency.  /of course we have not seen this yet. One
of the factors that needs to be considered is the amount of redaction in
documents ICANN releases.  But really the ATRT2 pushed for a notion of
default transparency with few predetermined classes for redaction, with
public logging required for any thing redacted. We were not, however,
explicit in exactly what this meant for staff.  I hope the ATRT of 2016
manages to be explicit in giving recommended directions for
transparency. I think lack of staff transparency has become one of
ICANN's greater liabilities.

I wonder whether ICANN or  "ICANNleaks" will publish the un-redacted
report first?

avri


On 15-Jul-15 14:13, Phil Corwin wrote:
>
> Just read your story, Kieren.
>
>  
>
> Excellent work – and very troubling in its revelations.
>
>  
>
> Certainly has implications for the final accountability package.
>
>  
>
> *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/*
>
>  
>
> *From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf
> Of *Kieren McCarthy
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:14 PM
> *To:* Accountability Cross Community
> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
>
>  
>
> I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent
> .Africa decision.
>
>  
>
> As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final
> "independent" report were redacted. 
>
>  
>
> I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff
> systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a
> letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient
> support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
>
>  
>
> In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively
> with integrity and fairness".
>
>  
>
> I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last
> week, in the middle of this accountability process.
>
>  
>
> Full
> story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Kieren
>
>  
>
>  
>
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we
> need to give more time to IRP.  Not only is it a critical part of the
> puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt
> with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in
> terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals
> against an ACSO's [non]actions.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> > Dear Chairs,
> >
> > I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that
> > we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community
> > Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the
> > extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in
> > particular IRP improvements.
> >
> > I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of
> > the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for
> > cross-check with CWG requirements.
> >
> > I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure
> > will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver
> > community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on
> > direct accountability.
> >
> > I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to
> > the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our
> > IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look
> > at the diagram!).
> >
> > I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during
> > the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
> >
> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Malcolm Hutty.
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community


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