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

[parminder]

On Sunday 21 August 2016 11:46 PM, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> I must be a bit dense here. For me much of this */transparency
> discussion/* reads like a badminton game where the topic (the birdie)
> is being batted up and down, back and forth.
>

No density .... Just that it is a political subject, and would have its
political to and fro (and worse, just wait till the proposal actually
goes to the ICANN board). If transparency is not political, not much is.

> Shouldn’t we be looking for enlightenment as to what is an appropriate
> transparency regime for ICANN. Transparency is a means to
> accountability and we should be able to critique existing ICANN
> transparency regime from an accountability vantage point, and work
> toward an improved ICANN transparency regime by starting from two poles.
>

Sure, pl do suggest your response to these two posers... Mine are below.
>
>
> - First, in ICANN’s multistakeholder governance model what might
> accountability require in terms of transparency? 

The required transparency is that applicable to bodies undertaking
public functions, including governments .

>
>
> - Second, what are the “best practice” models of transparency that we
> can benefit from as we review, critique, and advise on a best practice
> transparency strategy for ICANN?

Take India's right to information act (which is now also applicable to
non profits that take governmental funds) , or US's freedom of
information act (about which I admittedly know much less).

parminder

>
>
> Sam L.
>
> (/tempted but won't change Subject: line //:-(/)
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160822/0d9f061a/attachment-0001.html>