[CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

John Laprise jlaprise at gmail.com
Tue Aug 16 15:40:14 UTC 2016


+1

 

Best regards, 

 

John Laprise, Ph.D.

Consulting Scholar

 

 <http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/> http://www.linkedin.com/in/jplaprise/

 

 

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 10:15 AM
To: parminder <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

 

Whether or not ICANN is a "public governance" body is largely irrelevant to the issue of ICANN's transparency obligations.  ICANN's transparency obligations are an integral part of its method of operation as a corporation and a community.  

 

Yet there are times when ICANN falls short on transparency.  As a general matter, this concern is significant enough that we have a Transparency Subgroup for WS2 (which is where this discussion should continue in earnest).  

 

The specific case of transparency (or lack thereof) on expenditures (and particularly lobbying, "light lobbying," and "non-lobbying lobbying" related expenditures) is a significant example of those concerns.  I agree that a claim about following ordinary commercial practice does not resolve the issue.  But there is no need to attempt to recast ICANN as a "public governance" body -- we need look no further than ICANN's internal "governance" concepts.  To say they are atypical or unique is not a claim to "Internet exceptionalism" (not something I'd heard before this thread, but whatever) -- it is merely to acknowledge that ICANN is sufficiently different from "ordinary practices" that ordinary practices shouldn't apply.  

 

More specifically, ICANN's contracts with vendors need to build in levels of transparency that exceed ordinary practices, because ICANN's transparency obligations exceed ordinary transparency obligations.  One need look no further than the method by which counsel to the CCWG (Sidley and Adler firms) work with the CCWG.  Ordinarily, attorney-client privilege is maintained by keeping communications between attorney and client confidential -- this applies to meetings and attorney advice.  Instead, consultations with counsel and counsel's advice are both done in an open and transparent fashion, on recorded and transcribed calls and in documents that are publicly posted.

 

Transparency regarding lobbying and other vendors and service providers should be handled in a similar fashion.  To the extent it's not (and it's not...), it's fair to cry "foul" and to demand improvement.

 

This can all be done in the context of ICANN as it is.

 

For the record, I disagree with the attempt to characterize ICANN as a "public governance" body, for reasons substantially the same as those already expressed.  In the interests of bandwidth (mine and yours) and avoiding rehashing, I have added my thoughts to the matter.  In any event, for the reasons stated above, it is irrelevant to the transparency question to which this thread is devoted.

 

Greg  

 

On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 9:43 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net> > wrote:

To these important posers I may add, is ICANN considering making it clear to the vendors at the contracting stage itself that it has strong transparency obligations and would be bound by them (as governments typically do, which is why this discussion went into whether ICANN's functions are of a 'public governance' nature). parminder

 

On Monday 15 August 2016 08:38 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:

Kavouss,

 

Thank you for re-raising this issue, which appears to have been lost. 

 

Xavier, I also asked for additional clarifications that, I think, need to be answered to inform he work of the Transparency Working Group in WS2. Specifically, in your response, you said that “ICANN enters into confidentiality obligations as a result of bilateral negotiations with vendors” and that they prevent ICANN from publicly disclosing further details than those provided in your e-mail.  

 

*	Would this confidentiality obligation prevent disclosure through the DIDP process?

 

*	Would this confidentiality obligation prevent individual Directors from obtaining this information through their Right of Inspection?

 

*	Would this confidentiality obligation prevent an individual Decisional Participant from obtaining this information if they requested it under their Right of Inspection of  ICANN accounting books and records pursuant to the provisions of Section 6333 of the CCC?

 

*	Would this confidentiality obligation prevent the Empowered Community from obtaining the information through its right to launch a third-party, independent investigation if three Decisional Participants determine that there is a credible allegation that ICANN has committed fraud or that there has been a gross mismanagement of ICANN’s resources?  

 

Finally, I did not see where you clarified whether ICANN engaged vendors to perform similar tasks – “lobbying” or educational/engagement – that may not have been captured by the Congressional database, such as at the state level in the U.S. (particularly California), the U.S. Executive Branch, or in non-US countries.  

 

Best,

 

Brett 

 

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh
Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:36 AM
To: Xavier J. Calvez
Cc: accountability-cross-community at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update

 

Dear Xavier 

I have sent you the following question to which I have not received any reply

Perhaps you have been very busy and overlooked my questions

I still awaiting for clarifications

Regards

KAVOUSS 

Copy of questions raised many weeks ago

Dear Xavier

Thank you for all info.

Pls clarify the following

1.What is prfessional advice :;this advice is given to whom ,on what subject and why is needed

2. what is lobbing here. who lobbies for whom and on what and the need for such lobbies

3 Who checks and confirm  the legal costs by three legal entities, who decide that there was a need for such legal advice and who checks and control ther tme spent..Many of these advice were repeatation of previous adfvices and just cut and p[aste from one advice to others .Please review all advices given from the begining of 2015 till now

We neeed all these detailed info .

Regards

Kavouss

 

2016-08-15 16:25 GMT+02:00 avri doria <avri at apc.org <mailto:avri at apc.org> >:



On 15-Aug-16 06:43, parminder wrote:
> I just said that an Antigua based betting company will be ill-advised
> to try to take up a closed gTLD in its name and conduct its business
> under it, because it is liable to be seized whenever US authorities
> want to do so (by their jurisdiction control over ICANN) . Same is
> true of a drug company, say from India, planning global e-com trade of
> generic drugs. It will also be ill-advised to risk a closed gTLD in
> its name to do such global business, for the same reason.

I thought that this has to do with the jurisdiction of the registry and
the rregistrar itself.  And while it may cause concern because there are
not as many registries and registrars in non US jurisdictions, there are
some and could be more in time. It may also mean that greater efforts
should be taken to inform people of the jurisdiction their registration
is under and whose laws they are subject to, but I do not see how the
location of ICANN main office or place of incorproation affects this issue.

In any case aren't the issues relatiing to the jurisdiction of
registries and registrars  among the ones being discussed in the Juris
sub group?

But the conversation has been quite far ranging so could well be missing
the point of the disagreement.

avri


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

 

  _____  

Brett Schaefer
Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs
Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy
The Heritage Foundation
214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002
202-608-6097 <tel:202-608-6097> 
 <http://heritage.org/> heritage.org

_______________________________________________
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

 


_______________________________________________
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

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160816/dd164c04/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list