[CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Mon Mar 30 22:24:30 UTC 2015

+1 Chris D and +1 Greg. Let’s not inhibit useful dialogue

Chris LaHatte

Ombudsman

Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/

Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman

Confidentiality

All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.  The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 10:32 AM
To: Seun Ojedeji
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] GAO meeting request

Seun,

Thanks for your email.  My suggestion to seek advice from Sidley was in response to some of the more aggressive suggestions on how to respond to the GAO request.  I never suggested that Sidley participate.  I think that if our chairs speak in their individual capacity and have a reasonable idea of what to expect, there's no need for legal advice.  However, I would not want to refuse the request without legal advice.  The GAO inquiry has been requested by the US Congressional committee that oversees the Department of Commerce, and thus NTIA (and thus oversight on the IANA transition).  That is the context of this particular request.  I don't think speaking to the GAO shows any kind of "preference"; the fact that the GAO is asking for this discussion reflects the US Government's particular involvement in the IANA transition.  That said, I don't expect that our chairs would blithely turn down a request from another government to discuss the work of the CCWG.

Best regards,

Greg

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi Greg, Mathieu, all

I am just thinking aloud here; I am not sure i understand where/why Sidley comes into this picture. A meeting with CCWG Co-chairs was requested, i don't think we need legal firm's advice on that, neither do we need their participation....i think we just need to determine if it should happen or not. My personal preference would have been to refer them to CCWG informational pages or for it to be informal (i.e in their individual capacity) as Kavouss indicated.

Nevertheless, i agree with your comment about not being so blunt. I will then suggest that Co-Chairs attend the meeting in their capacity as co-chairs with the intent of providing informational reference and providing clarification to them based on any question they ask relating to ccwg processes and status. Any hypothetical question that may be asked should be refereed to the ccwg; its important that the co-chairs don't attempt to address issues that is pending clearly finalised direction within the ccwg. The meeting recordings may also need to be recorded for documentation purposes.

That said, i think we should note that the US may not be the only country following this process and so we need to be mindful of the preference given to different departments in US. Think about a scenario where my country for instance writes the co-chairs with the similar intent of interacting with you in order to improve their participation.

Regards

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 1:49 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > wrote:

Mathieu,

I agree with Ed and suggest that Sidley be consulted on this immediately. Excellent points have been made in this thread.  However, I personally would not recommend "stonewalling" them and sending them to read our transcripts, etc. As between our two esteemed firms, Sidley has a significant presence in Washington and has lawyers deeply knowledgeable about dealing with the USG. Our team includes a former Congressman and a former General Counsel of the Deoartment of Commerce.  We will need to work with them to determine how to respond and how to handle the interviews, since we have more background on how ICANN (the community) works and may also need to point out some of the congressional activities to date regarding IANA (they did watch the latest Senate hearing) -- and, of course, we are the client.

Greg Shatan

On Monday, March 30, 2015, Edward Morris <egmorris1 at toast.net <mailto:egmorris1 at toast.net> > wrote:

Hi Mathieu,

Thanks for sharing this request with us.

I'm not particularly comfortable with placing you, Thomas and Leon in the position of representing the CCWG before a Congressional agency. I would simply direct the agency to our transcripts, recordings and documents, all online, should they want information about our activities. If after looking at these materials the G.A.O. has further questions they should feel free to submit them in writing and as a group we can chose how to respond and vet the responses together before sending them back to Congress.

My reluctance to fully comply with the GAO request, as proffered, is largely based upon the following reasons:

1. We're not a traditional heirarchical based organisation where chairs speak and direct the group. Rather it's the other way around. We all know this, you all know this, I'm not sure an outside organisation such as the GAO really would understand this to the extent necessary. I would hate to see your views be reinterpreted as representative of the entire groups as the GAO processes your interviews;

2. In the best of situations when interviewed by professionals folks occasionally misspeak. I don't believe that either yourself, Thomas or Leon are native English speakers. Word choice is sometimes a problem among non native speakers - I know it is for me when I converse in one of my secondary languages.. We saw this a bit in Istanbul where on occasion clarifications had to be made from the head table because the language used in presenting information was not precise and led to misinterpretations by some. I don't mean to be critical of the linguistic capability of our leadership trio - Leon, in particular, has an English language ability that surpasses my own. It's just in this highly politicised world I would hate for a moment of "misspeak" to be twisted or interpreted in a way it was not intended.

3. Politics. In a bygone era the G.A.O. truly was an independent nonpartisan research branch of Congress. I still want to believe it largely is. Sadly, with greater frequency the G.A.O. has been accused by some  of being a bit more partisan in its research. I would hate to see anything said by the C.C.W.G. leadership used in a political manner by those charged with this investigation.

If, despite the foregoing, it is decided that it is in the best interest of all to go forward with the interview I would respectfully suggest the following:

1. It be made clear to the investigators that yourself, Thomas and Leon are speaking for yourselves and not for the group as a whole during your interview, and

2. Prior to agreeing to do so you confer with our independent counsel as to their views and advice on the matter.

None of the foregoing should in any way be interpreted as anything critical of our fine co-chairs. It's just that he environment, poisoned a bit by Mr. Chehade's less than positive characterisation of the CWG leadership and work, is one in which I believe that caution is advised.

Kind Regards,

Ed Morris

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> > wrote:

Dear Colleagues,

For your information, the US Governement Accountability Office has requested a teleconference with the co-chairs of the CCWG. Tentative date is currently discussed for next week (7 or 8 April). 

Your inputs are welcome. 

Best regards,
Thomas Rickert, Leon Felipe Sanchez, Mathieu Weill

-------- Message transféré -------- 

Sujet : 

April 1, 2, or 3 Meeting Request CCWG-Accountability Chairs

Date : 

Thu, 26 Mar 2015 17:45:11 +0000

De : 

Healey, John C <HealeyJ at GAO.GOV <mailto:HealeyJ at GAO.GOV> >

Pour : 

'rickert at anwaelte.de' <rickert at anwaelte.de <mailto:rickert at anwaelte.de> >, 'mathieu.weill at afnic.fr' <mathieu.weill at afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill at afnic.fr> >, 'leonfelipe at sanchez.mx' <leonfelipe at sanchez.mx <mailto:leonfelipe at sanchez.mx> >

Good day, Mr. Rickert, Mr. Sanchez Ambia, and Mr. Weill:

You may recall meeting my colleagues, Derrick Collins, Alwynne Wilbur, and Kate Perl at the ICANN meeting in Singapore in February. 

At any rate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has been asked by the Chairs of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and its Communications and Technology Subcommittee to review the National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) proposed transition of  key Internet domain name functions to the global multistakeholder community. We are meeting with knowledgeable people and organizations to gather information for our work.

We would like to meet with you via teleconference to discuss the proposed transition from the perspective of the Accountability working group. We have provided a list of questions, below, to give you a better idea of the topics we want to discuss with you, and I’ll provide a teleconference line after confirming your availability (please “reply all” so that others can know of your availability). In addition to the discussion, we would also welcome written responses.

Would you be available for a one-hour time slot during one of the following blocks?

*  Wednesday, April 1st: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

*  Thursday, April 2nd: 11:00 – 12:00 EST

*  Friday, April 3rd: 10:00 – 11:00 EST

We would also like to meet with Steve DelBianco and Cheryl Langdon-Orr to discuss their work with the Stress Test Work Party. Please let me know if you’d like to be part of that meeting, too.

Thank you,

John

John Healey, Senior Analyst

Physical Infrastructure Team

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Washington DC, 20548

(202) 512-5006 <tel:%28202%29%20512-5006>    |   HealeyJ at gao.gov <mailto:HealeyJ at gao.gov> 

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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

-- 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seun Ojedeji,
Federal University Oye-Ekiti
web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
Mobile: +2348035233535
alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453> seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng> 

The key to understanding is humility - my view !

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150330/0d6e7432/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5483 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150330/0d6e7432/smime.p7s>