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

[parminder]

On Tuesday 16 August 2016 11:00 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2016, at 1:22 PM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net
> <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:
>> As I said, most democratic governments of the world have laws for
>> access to public information. Take India's Right to Information Act
>> for instance. Wikipedia information on it is here
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act,_2005>, and
>> here is the actual text
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Information_Act,_2005>. The
>> US also has very good laws in this regard, to which you can get easy
>> access. Over 95 countries have some kind of freedom of information
>> laws ( see
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_laws_by_country
>> ) and I think most of them have better transparency laws than what
>> ICANN adheres to…
>
> Please be specific.  ICANN already has a "Documentary Information
> Disclosure Policy”,
> and to the extent you believe it needs to be changed, it would be good
> to hear how.

John, I have been as specific as I can. For instance, I want to know
what the organisations said to be doing education/ engagement work with
regard to IANA transition were really doing, and where  exactly were
they were doing it. I really have no idea what this huge amount of money
has gone towards.  And I have a feeling that I have a right to know,
because I consider 'ICANN by its function is a public governance body"
(as I said earlier, and heard profuse opinion against). I consider
ICANN's money as some kind of public funds...Dont you think ICANN needs
to disclose this information? (Please be specific.) The ICANN
representative says that in regard to these contracts - all of them with
US entities - that

    "ICANN enters into confidentiality obligations as a result of
    bilateral negotiations with vendors - either using ICANN templates
    or vendor supplied templates. The confidentiality provisions in
    these 7 contracts were in many instances vendor supplied forms and
    do not allow, either explicitly or implicitly, for ICANN to disclose
    publicly the value of the services rendered, or, in several cases,
    any information pertaining to the contract without mutual agreement.
    /*This is consistent with common business and procurement
    practices*/...". (emphasis added)

Such a response would not be admitted under Indian public information
access laws, as with most mature democracies. ICANN's conduct has *not*
to be consistent with common business practices, it has to be consistent
with common practices of bodies that perform public functions.

The defined conditions of non disclosure by ICANN are such that will
today be laughed away in any public information access discussion in any
mature democratic context, things like "Information requests....are made
with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous
individual".  https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

I am not clear what is the 'community's' plan regarding this. Does this
group share the expectation that at the end of the transition process,
ICANN will adopt information disclosure policies of the same level as
that of mature democracies today (I give the public information regimes
of India and US as specific examples)? If not, why so?

John, it is your turn to be specific :) .

parminder







>
>> First, transparency to whom? Probably you mean accountant's
>> transparent to you, not to the public... But even if you are so good
>> as to be calling for the latter, that is your expectation from
>> someone, which is an entirely private matter, and your will to do or
>> not do. We, on the other hand, are talking about *legitimate*
>> expectation of the *public*, and I see no basis for a legitimate
>> expectation of the public for your accountant to be entirely
>> transparent to it.
>
> Actually, I again do not concur with your characterization of anything
> that might 
> affect the public as an institution of "public governance", and you’ve
> failed to clearly
> distinguish why this is the case for ICANN and not the hundreds of
> other bodies
> that make standards and policies for objects that the public uses…  
>
>> Some of us may have decided that we will jettison all known concepts
>> and theories of political science and governance
>
> Not jettison, but simply not apply without a valid basis.
>
>> … and consider the Internet and ICANN sui generis but I would suggest
>> that it is not at all wise to do so. I do not want to comment on what
>> two kinds of ideologies converge in this, what I see as, very
>> dangerous direction, so let me not comment :)
>
> Most excellent.
>>>  If you would be specific regarding which particular norms and 
>>>  standards for transparency you believe ICANN should meet 
>>>  (regardless of your underlying justification why), then perhaps
>>>  we may find areas of agreement among the working group?
>>
>> Yes, I am specific. I want ICANN to uphold the same level of
>> transparency standards that the more democratic governments do, and
>> the details are all in the documents linked above. Tell me how would
>> you want us to go from here.
>
> Cite the standards that you believe are not being met, and the specific 
> changes to ICANN you believe this group should consider in its work.
> By doing so, we may be able to make progress in areas of commonality
> despite the lack of alignment in underlying belief systems.
>
> /John
>
> p.s. my views alone.
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160821/78265ba6/attachment.html>