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

Marilyn Cade marilynscade at hotmail.com
Tue Aug 16 17:49:34 UTC 2016


First of all, ICANN has always complied with the lobbying disclosures. :-) I know that some are turning up their noses at the use of lobbyists, but this is not a bad thing when one understands that in order to meet with elected officials and provide information, depending on how much of that one does, one registers as a lobbyist in the United States.
I am not now a lobbyist, but at one time in my technical career which spaned 27 years, I was registered, because the majority of my job was to meet with elected officials -- in the USG, in the US Congress and in the US House of Representatives.  And my job was to talk about the Internet, to explain it, and to explain its benefits.  In those few years that I was in that role, each year, I disclosed all of the relevant information, as did my employer. 
>From what I see, ICANN does the same. 
It is also acceptable for an organization to augment its staff with experts that are needed for only a short time period that are experts in communications, or in policy analysis, or in software redesign, or in Security, etc. etc. 
I too wonder what the right degree of transparency is, but I suspect it is pretty close to where we are now, with a few tweaks.
And for anyone who wants to spend the time that I do every year on the ICANN budget, and make a positive contribution on that front, please, please, join me and Chuck Gomes, and Jimson Olufuye and many others, such as the ccTLDs and instead of complaining about lack of transparency, read the detailed reports that we do have access to, and attend the working sessions of the community on the ICANN budget. 
Marilyn Cade


To: accountability-cross-community at icann.org
From: sam at lanfranco.net
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2016 12:52:40 -0400
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [community-finance] IANA Stewardship Transition - Project Expenses - FY16 Q3 update


  
    
  
  
    More thoughts on:

    

    On 16-Aug-16 12:22, parminder wrote:

    

    I ask you; do you agree or not that ICANN
      should uphold these transparency standards that are upheld by
      public bodies?
      

      

      There are two complementary avenues for
        pursuing what should be ICANN’s commitment to transparency, and
        discussion should proceed on both fronts. 

        

        One is try to distill a scope and depth of transparency from
        ICANN’s mission and vision. That includes considerations of what
        concepts like “in the public good”, “in the public interest” and
        “public governance” direct us (the multistakeholder community
        within ICANN) to consider in the establishment of a standard of
        transparency to which ICANN should aspire.  

        

        The other avenue is to identify concrete and existing examples
        of a lack of transparency within the current operations of ICANN
        (e.g. lobbying contracts, “service” contracts, etc.) and build a
        remedial framework of transparency practice within ICANN. 

        

        Discussion should proceed on both fronts. 

        

        Sam L.

      

    
  


_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
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/20160816/3df658e0/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list