My 2 cents: I think the audit component is very similar to the existing accountability mechanisms in that it exists and, on paper at least, looks as though ICANN is fulfilling its transparency and accountability obligations. But in the same way the DIDP document disclosure policy exists but never produces anything that ICANN does not wish to produce. In the same way the Reconsideration Committee cannot actually reconsider anything but just check whether a policy has been followed. In the same way that the Ombudsman is tightly constrained in what he can consider and what he is allowed to recommend and publish. In the same way that the Whistleblower policy does not provide an independent or anonymous process to report concerns. And in the same way that the Independent Review Process is not really independent (ICANN decides on the panelists) and does not really review decisions (it can only decide if an existing decision broke the rules). I suspect that the auditing process is the same. The auditors do the job as best they can within the constraints they are under. It is in the rules and how they are applied and who gets to decide both those issues, that the actual usefulness of an audit lives. I have little doubt that the audit, as it is currently constructed, is run perfectly professionally. However I agree with Paul that to bring an appropriate level of transparency and accountability to ICANN it is likely necessary to revisit and greatly expand the breadth and depth of the current auditing process. Kieren On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 2:46 AM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:
Thanks. I did mean something more, but I appreciate the pointer …
P
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
*From:* Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 5:30 AM *To:* Paul Rosenzweig; 'Jordan Carter'; 'Arun Sukumar'
*Cc:* 'Accountability Cross Community' *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
Hi Paul -
I recognize that you may be discussing a different type of audit than a straight audit of financials, but I thought it was of value to point out that ICANN has, for many years, been subject to an audit of its financial records performed by an independent auditor. Each year’s audited financial statements is available from the ICANN historical financials page at https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/historical-en. The ICANN Board’s Audit Committee oversees the auditor selection and reporting process.
In addition, to the extent the surplus you raise is then placed into a reserve fund, principles for the management of the operating fund and reserve fund are included within ICANN’s investment policy ( https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/investment-policy-2014-07-30-en?routin...), which is regularly reviewed.
Best,
Sam
*From: *Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> *Date: *Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM *To: *'Jordan Carter' <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>, 'Arun Sukumar' < arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> *Cc: *'Accountability Cross Community' < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
Dear Jordan
This is a very useful point – one, that I’ve been making in other contexts for a while. Two things we should consider requiring:
Conduct and publicly release a five-year forensic audit. Before entrusting ICANN with greater autonomy, it should provide evidence that its financial and management decisions have been sound and comport with accepted business practices.
Conduct an annual outside audit. ICANN should be required to contract with an internationally recognized auditing firm (such as Deloitte, Dettica, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young, or KPMG) to conduct and publicly release an annual audit of the organizations. The costs should be paid by ICANN and the new IANA consortium and the auditing firm should be eligible only if it does not have a pre-existing contract with ICANN.
One other point: If, as seems to be the case, ICANN’s current fee structure creates an excess of income over expenses, thought should be given to requiring a rebate of some sort --- it is not wise for a “non-profit” to routinely run a surplus as that will be an inducement to expand the mission into new areas where the $ can usefully be spent.
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com>
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...>
<http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>
*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] *Sent:* Sunday, March 22, 2015 9:37 AM *To:* Arun Sukumar *Cc:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors
Another question which came up in the discussion this afternoon, is the question of "following the money" - what does economic influence translate into in terms of power within ICANN, and how is the CCWG taking account of this?
It's an important question that I am not sure we've spent much time on yet.
bests
Jordan
On 22 March 2015 at 11:34, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> wrote:
Valerie D'Costa, an advisor to the CCWG, raised a couple of interesting and important questions on process and substance. I hope this is a faithful reproduction.
On process:
1. What should be the role of advisors? Should they offer advice on the basis of unanimity or "rough consensus", or just provide input independently?
2. Should advisors restrict their role to responding to questions that have been flagged by the CCWG and routed through the chairs? Or should they/ can they flag issues they feel are important - weighed from their expertise.
On substance:
1. How is the accountability process taking stock of the evolving "global internet community", given that it is going to be driven by numbers from the developing world?
2. Taking off from Q1, is the CCWG evaluating the future capacity of ICANN to be truly representative in the years to come?
arun
--
-
@arunmsukumar <http://www.twitter.com/arunmsukumar>
Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance <http://www.ccgdelhi.org>
National Law University, New Delhi
Ph: +91-9871943272
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter
*A better world through a better Internet *
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
