[CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Wed Oct 7 17:32:04 UTC 2015 

hi,

I agree, the whistleblower issue in on the ATRT2 list of recommendations
and the next step is a outside audit of ICANN processes for this. 
Followed by remediation as required. From ATRT2 Final Report:

> 9.5. The Board should arrange an audit to determine the viability of
> the ICANN
> Anonymous Hotline as a whistleblowing mechanism and implement any
> necessary improvements.

I do not see this as a WS1 requirement in any way.

avri
(with atrt hat on.)

On 07-Oct-15 13:16, James Gannon wrote:
> I’m sorry but Im going to reiterate, a new whistleblower program is
> not an NTIA defined criteria, is not a community power and we have
> enough on our plate for our current discussions. 
>
> Is this a great potential idea for WS2 and the
> staff/so/ac/accountability piece? For sure and I would think that WP3
> (I think that’s the staff so/ac/accountability one) would be very open
> to hearing these ideas. 
>
> But for the moment, before Dublin we have an immense amount of work to
> do on fundamental issues and conflicts and I don’t think that we can
> spare time for additional work.
>
> -jg
>
> From: Ron Baione
> Date: Wednesday 7 October 2015 at 6:03 p.m.
> To: James Gannon, "kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
> <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>", "nigel at channelisles.net
> <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>",
> "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>"
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October -
> Shared Materials
>
> Again, That whistleblower process is internal, not external, the
> company is involved directly in the decision process you described.
>
> And remember, what you described is the Industry standard across high
> risk companies that are not multistakeholder and with different
> responsibilities.
>
> Spending time developing my proposed external process is in fact
> fulfilling a solution to stated US Government NTIA post-transition
> security mandates as stated by the NTIA's requirments to their
> accepting the transition. Basically, They want to know if ICANN is
> going to have the processes in place for this sort of thing, and its
> usually the first question Congress asks. "What about foreign
> governments, is the process secure?".
>
> The US Government will never approve the transition without knowing
> ICANN has every tool necessary to prevent foreign government pressure,
> and it should be a top issue, with an external whistleblower process
> officially drafted asap, or at least have the idea proposed in some
> facet.
>
> Ron
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From: *James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net
> <mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net>>;
> *To: *Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
> <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>>; Nigel Roberts
> <nigel at channelisles.net <mailto:nigel at channelisles.net>>;
> accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>;
> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October
> - Shared Materials
> *Sent: *Wed, Oct 7, 2015 4:33:04 PM
>
> While I won’t comment on the internal side of things I just want to
> note that an external compliance/whistleblower/reporting hotline which
> runs through a questionnaire and then gives the report back to the
> company is pretty industry standard and considered best practise
> across high risk industries.
>
> Whats important is what happens once the report is given over to the
> company.
>
> But given the work that we have ahead of us on fundamental issues I
> worry that spending cycles on such a small targeted issue might be
> time better spent on other matters, just my 2c.
>
> -jg
>
> From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:return>> on behalf of Kieren McCarthy
> Date: Wednesday 7 October 2015 at 5:27 p.m.
> To: Nigel Roberts, "accountability-cross-community at icann.org
> <javascript:return>"
> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October -
> Shared Materials
>
> The current whistleblower process is far worse than that. For one, the
> entire process is a hotline to a company that reports directly back to
> ICANN. That company receives a complaint and then takes it straight to
> ICANN and asks ICANN for what to do next. This is not hearsay, it is
> what happened to one person that actually used the process (and it
> wasn't me). The company's first question was to ask what their name
> was. They asked that I'd they gave it, would it be given to ICANN. The
> answer was yes. The individual heard nothing about their complaint for
> a while. Then the company got back: ICANN had decided not to progress
> with it, so it was considered closed. In other words, the
> whistleblower program is a complete fraud completely determined and
> run by ICANN's legal team. ICANN refuses to provides any details of
> this program (and no wonder) and that even extends to basic stats. The
> only other person that I know used the program was fired shortly
> afterwards. I understand they gave their name to the company believing
> it would be confidential. When ICANN was quizzed on the program, it
> had the audacity to argue that the low level of use of the
> whistleblower program showed that there weren't any concerns
> internally. It's doesn't take a genius to realize that keeping your
> mouth shut is preferable to being fired and having the issue you were
> complaining about brushed under the carpet. Kieren
>
> On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:21 AM Nigel Roberts <nigel at channelisles.net
> <javascript:return>> wrote:
>
>     What's the point of a whistleblowing process if there's no one with a
>     big stick to listen to the whistle?
>
>
>
>     On 07/10/15 15:01, Ron Baione wrote:
>     > An idea I had was to include in the process some sort of
>     mandatory monthly collaboration with a secure external
>     whistleblower process.  It is perceived that ICANN members would
>     be somewhat more suceptible to unlawful pressure by governments or
>     inter-governmental entities post-transition.
>     >
>     > Having an external process might help gain public and U.S.
>     government trust in the transition and accountability process. 
>     Whistle-blower websites and reporters exist around the globe, and
>     have been the subject of much controversy, but in a
>     multistakeholder controlled external whistleblower process, you
>     could have:
>     >
>     > 1)  A monthly process where a conjunction of 60 legit and
>     diverse privacy groups are placed in a pool of availability
>     >
>     > 2) 5 privacy organizations would then be chosen at random each
>     month, by algorithm or out of a hat to act as possible external
>     whistleblowers for the ICANN community
>     >
>     > 3) Each of the 60 privacy groups must sign a non-disclosure
>     contract with ICANN regarding the provision of their services at
>     any given time
>     >
>     > 4) The names of the 60 privacy groups would be publicly known,
>     published on January 1st each year,
>     >
>     > 5) It would not be lawful for those groups to reveal if they are
>     that monthly representative, or risk losing their incentive to
>     participate in the process, an jncentive which would be non-monetary.
>     >
>     > 6) The incentive would be, i suppose, the credibility gained for
>     their organization by being considered worthy of external
>     whistleblower stewardship
>     >
>     > 7) An ICANN led review process of which privacy groups are
>     chosen and retained year over year would be conducted by the CCWG.
>     >
>     > 8) Since the model is for the creation of a a random selection
>     process, groups could theoretically serve 12 times a year,
>     therefore a limit on number of months a single organization could
>     serve a whistleblower function would be capped at 8 months of service.
>     >
>     > 9) There would be a code-of-conduct signed by each organization
>     allowing for automatic vote by CCWG on removal from the pool of
>     organizations of an organization or retinment, for example, if an
>     organization for failed to renew or delayed its renewal of its
>     local registration or enacted or amended their bylaws, failed to
>     submit requested information in a timely fashion, or acted in a
>     way that was contrary to supporting a free and open internet.
>     >
>     > Ron
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return>
>     > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>     >
>     _______________________________________________
>     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <javascript:return>
>     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list