[CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update
parminder
parminder at itforchange.net
Tue Aug 16 16:22:12 UTC 2016
On Tuesday 16 August 2016 08:45 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
> Whether or not ICANN is a "public governance" body is largely
> irrelevant to the issue of ICANN's transparency obligations.
There is 'transparency' and there is 'transparency'. Standards expected
from corporations (and they do exist) are quite different from non
profit bodies, which is quite different from that expected from public
bodies (or bodies involved in public governance). Which standards are
ICANN expected to uphold. I dont see any reasons that they should be any
lower than that for instance are upheld by government of US, and of
India. One thing they can take form US gov is their standards of public
transparency.
I ask you; do you agree or not that ICANN should uphold these
transparency standards that are upheld by public bodies?
If your answer is yes, the question arises why should ICANN uphold
transparency level higher than normally required for for profit
corporations or evne for non profit bodies. And the reason is that ICANN
undertakes functions of a 'public governance' nature. That is the only
rationale I can see, unless you tell me a better one.
> ICANN's transparency obligations are an integral part of its method of
> operation as a corporation and a community.
So, this is the rationale you offer.... But then why have ICANN
transparency standards been so pathetic, if they are actually inherent
to it (can one state a clearer self-contradiction). This is the familiar
ICANN sovereignty and exceptionalism thing, coming from Internet
exceptionalism....
>
> 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.
That is called 'exceptionalism' when ordinary extant ideas and concepts
are taken not to apply to a phenomenon... As for 'internet
exceptionalism', there are many scholarly articles and at least one
book on it... Just look up google .
>
>
> 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.
Where are these obligations? Can you show me where they exist, so that
we can directly challenge their non fulfilment.
> 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.
'Ordinarily' for whom, what class of organisations....? I ask for
'public governance bodies' level standards. That would be a clear basis
to work from. Otherwise it is always a slippery and arbitrary argument.
parminder
>
> 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
>> <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 <https://www.avast.com/antivirus>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> BrettSchaefer
>> 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>
>> heritage.org <http://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
>> <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
>> <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
> <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/be42c5b7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list