Hi, The problem with staff redaction and transparency is one that continues to plague ICANN. And is something that makes trust harder. Several reviews, including the ATRT1 & 2 have tried to do something about this. And while there is some more transparency regarding the Board, we are not making much headway with the Staff. Or perhaps it is the Board that has not been able, or allowed, to translate recommendations of transparency into instructions to the staff. One thing that we hoped would help in the quest was the annual reporting on metrics for transparency. /of course we have not seen this yet. One of the factors that needs to be considered is the amount of redaction in documents ICANN releases. But really the ATRT2 pushed for a notion of default transparency with few predetermined classes for redaction, with public logging required for any thing redacted. We were not, however, explicit in exactly what this meant for staff. I hope the ATRT of 2016 manages to be explicit in giving recommended directions for transparency. I think lack of staff transparency has become one of ICANN's greater liabilities. I wonder whether ICANN or "ICANNleaks" will publish the un-redacted report first? avri On 15-Jul-15 14:13, Phil Corwin wrote:
Just read your story, Kieren.
Excellent work – and very troubling in its revelations.
Certainly has implications for the final accountability package.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:14 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness".
I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process.
Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
Kieren
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions.
avri
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus