Have we discussed the inner checks and balances within ICANN at all? While the GDD will be looking to make a lot of money from the gTLD program, the compliance and oversight functions, as well as the policy making functions may be easily in conflict with financial objectives of the Corporation. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8335 2487 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA

On Mar 22, 2015, at 7:36 AM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91-9871943272> _______________________________________________ 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 <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 <mailto: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

There should be an audit for the years to date Sincerely Carrie Devorah Founder The Center For Copyright Integrity www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 22, 2015, at 3:57 PM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

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 O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image001.jpg>

From: Jordan Carter [mailto: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 Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance 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

Thanks. I did mean something more, but I appreciate the pointer . P Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015> 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?routi ng_type=path), which is regularly reviewed. Best, Sam From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM To: 'Jordan Carter' <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >, 'Arun Sukumar' <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> > Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl e&id=19&Itemid=9> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_me dium=email&utm_campaign=signature-us2015> From: Jordan Carter [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91-9871943272> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report. I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:

The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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...>

<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

*From:* Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <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...>

<image003.jpg> <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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Enron had a great auditor too Carrie Devorah Wew.crnterforcopyrightintegrity.com Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:01 AM, James Gannon <james@cyberinvasion.net> wrote:

I would second Seun’s comment, BDO are a very well regarded independent auditors, re: payment this is standard practice for all independent auditing worldwide and is best practice in any sector I’ve encountered.

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Seun Ojedeji Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 12:56 PM To: Carrie Devorah Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report.

I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote: The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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 O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image002.jpg>

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 O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image003.jpg>

From: Jordan Carter [mailto: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 Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

The independent auditor does not work for free. You made my point. They work for the entity paying them. Hence, if you are working for the entity paying you then you are not independent, you are a contractor. FYI, I caught this article. How odd swifts people get the special access? http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/taylor-swift-bought-up-all-your-dot-porn-urls... Carrie Www.Centerforcopyrightintegrity.com Sent from my iPad

On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:07 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

I agree. My point (unlike Carrie’s) is not about the independence, but about the lack of depth currently ….

P

Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@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 <image001.jpg>

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:56 AM To: Carrie Devorah Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Paul Rosenzweig Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report.

I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote: The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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 O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image002.jpg>

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 O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key <image003.jpg>

From: Jordan Carter [mailto: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 Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

+1 to Greg’s comments, here is nt the time nor the place to try and overhaul independent financial auditing, if there is something relevant to the CCWG that needs to be addressed fine but I don’t think that this is something that we need to spend cycles on, we have little time as it is without distracting ourselves. On 23 Mar 2015, at 23:31, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: The financial auditing process is a highly-defined and regulated process. A number of reforms were introduced after Enron, to avoid more Enrons. Within the definition and restrictions of what a financial audit is, I think we can assume that BDO is doing an appropriate, professional job. BDO will follow the same "playbook" no matter who the client is. I don't think it's fruitful for this group to pursue global reforms of the financial audit process, so I suggest we not pursue inquiries that assume the process is per se corrupt. I also don't think it's fruitful to redesign the standard financial audit. That said, there's probably valid accountability questions along the lines of "How does the community gain transparency and insight into the audit process?" "Are the current methods for doing so sufficient? More interesting, and really a different inquiry is the "audit" proposed by Paul and alluded to by Kieren, which for the sake of clarity we probably shouldn't call an "audit" at all (since that's what brought this thread into the weeds in the first place). I'm not sure if there's a proper term for it. I'll just call it the "deep dive." What would this deep dive consist of? Is it limited to financial matters? What are we hoping to look at? What powers are part of this deep dive? (Note: I think financial auditors don't really have any "power" -- they can raise red flags and make recommendations, but they can't force the client to eat its spinach. I think the worst they can do is walk away. But this is not really my field, so I might be wrong about that.) How does it differ from the ATRT reviews? Just a few thoughts.... Greg On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:32 PM, <carriedev@gmail.com<mailto:carriedev@gmail.com>> wrote: The independent auditor does not work for free. You made my point. They work for the entity paying them. Hence, if you are working for the entity paying you then you are not independent, you are a contractor. FYI, I caught this article. How odd swifts people get the special access? http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/taylor-swift-bought-up-all-your-dot-porn-urls... Carrie Www.Centerforcopyrightintegrity.com<http://www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com/> Sent from my iPad On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:07 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: I agree. My point (unlike Carrie’s) is not about the independence, but about the lack of depth currently …. P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image001.jpg><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:56 AM To: Carrie Devorah Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>; Paul Rosenzweig Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report. I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com<mailto:carriedev@gmail.com>> wrote: The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too. Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com<http://www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com/> Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> wrote: Thanks. I did mean something more, but I appreciate the pointer … P Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image002.jpg><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<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM To: 'Jordan Carter' <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>, 'Arun Sukumar' <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in<mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in>> Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> O: +1 (202) 547-0660<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739<tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key<http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> <image003.jpg><http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> From: Jordan Carter [mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:%2B91-9871943272> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649<tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 -- Gregory S. Shatan • Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com<mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com<http://www.lawabel.com/> _______________________________________________ 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

So I think the answer in this case would not be to try to decide a new audit mechanism but instead create a role where someone suitably qualified is allowed to compel production of financial records as an independent financial reviewer. A sort of GAO role for ICANN. This person/entity would then have the ability and flexibility to keep ICANN in check financially. Kieren - [sent through phone] On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

That’s why I called it a “forensic audit” – it’s a practice I’m familiar with that I’ve heard go by that name, but I am comfortable with “deep dive.” I am not asking after the annual financials for the last 5 years – but a deeper examination of line-item expenditures and such. At the top level, the financials ICANN releases which talk about thinks like administrative expenses have much less detail than I am suggesting we should be interested in – either as part of the CCWG’s review or as part of a longer-term WS2 project for the “Community Council” (of what ever form it takes) to undertake to see where the expenditures are going on a more granular basis.

Cheers Paul

Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

From: Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 5:32 PM To: Carrie Devorah Cc: Paul Rosenzweig; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

The financial auditing process is a highly-defined and regulated process. A number of reforms were introduced after Enron, to avoid more Enrons. Within the definition and restrictions of what a financial audit is, I think we can assume that BDO is doing an appropriate, professional job. BDO will follow the same "playbook" no matter who the client is. I don't think it's fruitful for this group to pursue global reforms of the financial audit process, so I suggest we not pursue inquiries that assume the process is per se corrupt. I also don't think it's fruitful to redesign the standard financial audit. That said, there's probably valid accountability questions along the lines of "How does the community gain transparency and insight into the audit process?" "Are the current methods for doing so sufficient?

More interesting, and really a different inquiry is the "audit" proposed by Paul and alluded to by Kieren, which for the sake of clarity we probably shouldn't call an "audit" at all (since that's what brought this thread into the weeds in the first place). I'm not sure if there's a proper term for it. I'll just call it the "deep dive."

What would this deep dive consist of?

Is it limited to financial matters?

What are we hoping to look at?

What powers are part of this deep dive? (Note: I think financial auditors don't really have any "power" -- they can raise red flags and make recommendations, but they can't force the client to eat its spinach. I think the worst they can do is walk away. But this is not really my field, so I might be wrong about that.)

How does it differ from the ATRT reviews?

Just a few thoughts....

Greg

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:32 PM, <carriedev@gmail.com <mailto:carriedev@gmail.com> > wrote: The independent auditor does not work for free. You made my point. They work for the entity paying them. Hence, if you are working for the entity paying you then you are not independent, you are a contractor.

FYI, I caught this article. How odd swifts people get the special access? http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/taylor-swift-bought-up-all-your-dot-porn-urls... <http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/taylor-swift-bought-up-all-your-dot-porn-urls...> &utm_source=prnewser&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_campaign=dailynewsletter20150323

Carrie Www.Centerforcopyrightintegrity.com <http://Www.Centerforcopyrightintegrity.com>

Sent from my iPad On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:07 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: I agree. My point (unlike Carrie’s) is not about the independence, but about the lack of depth currently ….

P

Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> <image001.jpg>

From: Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 23, 2015 8:56 AM To: Carrie Devorah Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> ; Paul Rosenzweig Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report. I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process. Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com <mailto:carriedev@gmail.com> > wrote: The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com <http://Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com> Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > wrote: Thanks. I did mean something more, but I appreciate the pointer … P

Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> <image002.jpg>

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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> > Date: Sunday, March 22, 2015 at 12:57 PM To: 'Jordan Carter' <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> >, 'Arun Sukumar' <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto:arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in> > Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto: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 <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20547-0660> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20329-9650> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%2B1%20%28202%29%20738-1739> Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...> <image003.jpg>

From: Jordan Carter [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91-9871943272> _______________________________________________ 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

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 <tel:%2B64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter A better world through a better Internet _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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

-- Gregory S. Shatan * Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com <mailto:gsshatan@lawabel.com> ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>

So there was some proposed legislation on IANA in Congress before the break. Some of the content was, frankly, pretty good because it came from the perspective of people who spend a lot of time keeping tabs on powerful bodies representing the public interest. Anyway, the proposal has two aspects relevant to this current conversation: an audit and an inspector general. (whole thing here: http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/documents/DIFA%20-%20KELL... ) Relevant parts: On audit "An annual audit of ICANN and the IANA Consortium will be performed by an internationally recognized auditing firm that will not have had a contract with ICANN during the 2-year period preceding the audit. The costs of the audit will be paid by ICANN and the IANA Consortium." On a "deep dive" "There will be established a joint office of inspector general for ICANN and the IANA Consortium that will be jointly funded by ICANN and the IANA Consortium. "Such office shall be headed by an Inspector General that is appointed by the board of directors of ICANN for a non-renewable, fixed term. The Inspector General will be granted full access to ICANN and the IANA Consortium, which will include access to such matters as the finances, documents, and activities of ICANN and the IANA Consortium. "The reports of the Inspector General will be made publicly available and will not be subject to approval or editing by ICANN, the IANA Consortium, or the officers or directors of ICANN or the IANA Consortium." Strikes me that those are two solid measures that would enhance ICANN's accountability and transparency as well as being practical and pragmatic. Kieren On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi,

I think we should always try to avoid limiting the role of keeping ICANN accountable to an individual/entity. The entire community rather should hold ICANN accountable, that can happen by putting in place mechanism that ensure transparency in access to data with improve communication between the community and ICANN staff (board).

That is why I will disagree with Kieren on having a person/entity keeping ICANN accountable financially. What is important is that community participate in selecting audit firm(preferred feature) and the subsequent audit report accessible to the community for review and query if required.

Regards sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 24 Mar 2015 14:30, "Kieren McCarthy" <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> wrote:

...

So I think the answer in this case would not be to try to decide a new audit mechanism but instead create a role where someone suitably qualified is allowed to compel production of financial records as an independent financial reviewer.

A sort of GAO role for ICANN. This person/entity would then have the ability and flexibility to keep ICANN in check financially.

Kieren

- [sent through phone]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:51 PM, Paul Rosenzweig < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

...

That’s why I called it a “forensic audit” – it’s a practice I’m familiar with that I’ve heard go by that name, but I am comfortable with “deep dive.” I am not asking after the annual financials for the last 5 years – but a deeper examination of line-item expenditures and such. At the top level, the financials ICANN releases which talk about thinks like administrative expenses have much less detail than I am suggesting we should be interested in – either as part of the CCWG’s review or as part of a longer-term WS2 project for the “Community Council” (of what ever form it takes) to undertake to see where the expenditures are going on a more granular basis.

Cheers

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...> <image001.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

*From:* Greg Shatan [mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 5:32 PM *To:* Carrie Devorah *Cc:* Paul Rosenzweig; <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

The financial auditing process is a highly-defined and regulated process. A number of reforms were introduced after Enron, to avoid more Enrons. Within the definition and restrictions of what a financial audit is, I think we can assume that BDO is doing an appropriate, professional job. BDO will follow the same "playbook" no matter who the client is. I don't think it's fruitful for this group to pursue global reforms of the financial audit process, so I suggest we not pursue inquiries that assume the process is per se corrupt. I also don't think it's fruitful to redesign the standard financial audit. That said, there's probably valid accountability questions along the lines of "How does the community gain transparency and insight into the audit process?" "Are the current methods for doing so sufficient?

More interesting, and really a different inquiry is the "audit" proposed by Paul and alluded to by Kieren, which for the sake of clarity we probably shouldn't call an "audit" at all (since that's what brought this thread into the weeds in the first place). I'm not sure if there's a proper term for it. I'll just call it the "deep dive."

What would this deep dive consist of?

Is it limited to financial matters?

What are we hoping to look at?

What powers are part of this deep dive? (Note: I think financial auditors don't really have any "power" -- they can raise red flags and make recommendations, but they can't force the client to eat its spinach. I think the worst they can do is walk away. But this is not really my field, so I might be wrong about that.)

How does it differ from the ATRT reviews?

Just a few thoughts....

Greg

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:32 PM, <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:

The independent auditor does not work for free. You made my point. They work for the entity paying them. Hence, if you are working for the entity paying you then you are not independent, you are a contractor.

FYI, I caught this article. How odd swifts people get the special access?

http://www.adweek.com/prnewser/taylor-swift-bought-up-all-your-dot-porn-urls...

Carrie

Www.Centerforcopyrightintegrity.com

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 23, 2015, at 9:07 AM, "Paul Rosenzweig" < paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com> wrote:

I agree. My point (unlike Carrie’s) is not about the independence, but about the lack of depth currently ….

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...>

<image001.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

*From:* Seun Ojedeji [mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>] *Sent:* Monday, March 23, 2015 8:56 AM *To:* Carrie Devorah *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org; Paul Rosenzweig *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report.

I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos.

On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:

The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely

Carrie Devorah

Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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...>

<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

*From:* Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <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...>

<image003.jpg> <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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

--

*Gregory S. Shatan **ï* *Abelman Frayne & Schwab*

*Partner** | IP | Technology | Media | Internet*

*666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621*

*Direct* 212-885-9253 *| **Main* 212-949-9022

*Fax* 212-949-9190 *|* *Cell *917-816-6428

*gsshatan@lawabel.com <gsshatan@lawabel.com>*

*ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com <gregshatanipc@gmail.com>*

*www.lawabel.com <http://www.lawabel.com/>*

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Maintaining an effective system of internal controls is vital for achieving a company's business objectives, obtaining reliable financial reporting on its operations, preventing fraud and misappropriation of its assets, and minimizing its cost of capital. Both internal and independent auditors contribute to a company's audit system in different but important ways. Having an effective audit system is important for a ICANN because it enables it to pursue and attain its various corporate objectives. ICANN processes need various forms of internal control to facilitate supervision and monitoring, prevent and detect irregular transactions, measure ongoing performance, maintain adequate business records and to promote operational productivity. Internal auditors review the design of the internal controls and informally propose improvements, and document any material irregularities to enable further investigation by management if it is warranted under the circumstances. Without a system of internal controls or an audit system, a ICANN would not be able to create reliable reports for internal and external purposes. Thus, it would not be able to determine how to allocate its resources and would be unable to know which of its segments or product lines. Additionally, it could not manage its affairs, as it would not have the ability to tell the status of its assets and liabilities and would be rendered undependable in the marketplace due to its inability to consistently produce its services in a reliable fashion. Accordingly, an audit system is crucial in preventing debilitating misstatements in a ICANN's records and reports. In this regard i am in agreement with Seuns Statement On 3/23/15, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report.

I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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...>

<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

*From:* Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <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...>

<image003.jpg> <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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- WISDOM DONKOR Sosftware / Network Engineer Web/Open Government Platform Portal Specialist National Information Technology Agency (NITA) Post Office Box CT. 2439, Cantonments, Accra, Ghana Tel; +233 20 812881 Email: wisdom_dk@hotmail.com wisdom.donkor@data.gov.gh wisdom.dk@gmail.com Skype: wisdom_dk facebook: facebook@wisdom_dk Website: www.nita.gov.gh / www.data.gov.gh www.isoc.gh / www.itag.org.gh

I think I pick one of your point, which is about having the community participate in the process of selecting an auditor. That is something that this WG could look into. In one of the RIRs (and I think apply to most RIR), the community (members) participate in such selection process to the extent of determining the term of operation for the present firm before a new external auditor firm is sought. Cheers! sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Mar 2015 16:49, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:

I respect we have different approaches to data. Without stating too much, bridgebay is a Washington State not a California SEC registered entity.

Addressing an entity paying for work/ audit- there was an incident in CA I recall where an entity was sent by an institution to prepare an analysis of a site. The vendor stated he gave a favorable report because he wanted work and referrals from the company that owned the site.

As it turned out three months earlier someone looking at the site hired their own vendor to review the property. That independent report showed damages and concerns the host hired vendors report did not show.

Needless to say, four months later Northridge earthquake hit and the site foundation broke. The independently commissioned report had shown damage . The property hired analysts report did not.

Hence I advise parties, recommend your own. Let the community select three entities that can be researched transparently.

There is no perfect answer. With all the issues and difficulties in disclosure already from ICANN is money the issue to expect more cooperation from?

Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintegrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 8:55 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

I beg to differ Carrie, I don't understand the rationale behind your claim that an audit will lack independence (credibility) because ICANN is paying. Please tell me which audit company does free auditing without being paid....most organisations that use external auditors pay them from the same company money and that does not diminish the vl credibility of the report.

I think we may be introducing so much unrealistic examples in this process.

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 23 Mar 2015 12:40, "Carrie" <carriedev@gmail.com> wrote:

...

The fact that ICANN's Board oversees the audit is a statement that the audit is NOT an independent independent audit. Does ICANN pay for that audit too? I expect they do hence people that pay tend to get the results they seek so from the contractor wanting more work hence the question of the auditing entity, do they do work for Board members and other related affiliates and associations too.

Sincerely Carrie Devorah Www.centerforcopyrightintrgrity.com

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 23, 2015, at 5:46 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...>

<image002.jpg> <http://www.rsaconference.com/events/us15/register?utm_source=inhouse&utm_med...>

*From:* Samantha Eisner [mailto:Samantha.Eisner@icann.org <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...>

<image003.jpg> <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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Chris, Seun et al, I agree with your comments on the audit. I believe this same point was brought up when choosing the CCWG legal firm and the same concerns were shared by some regarding ICANN paying the bills. I believe these are reputable and professional firms that will do an independent job. Regards Beran On Mar 23, 2015, at 1:51 PM, Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte@icann.org> wrote:

I disagree with some of the views (from Carrie) about the audit. A corporate auditor has very specific requirements as to independence and heavy responsibility in conducting such an audit. The major audit firms such as BDO have substantial professional indemnity insurance, because of that very heavy responsibility. To suggest they are not doing an independent job is with respect, wrong, because the role is not understood properly. The audits talked about by others like Paul are on different issues, but still overlooks the purpose of the role of BDO.

Regards

Chris LaHatte Ombudsman Blog https://omblog.icann.org/ Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman

Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

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

Hi, In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus. And varying definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking about. In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus. The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont presume to define. And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition which often depends on voting thresholds. Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using modifiers of some sort. As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to try and fathom. avri On 22-Mar-15 20:57, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:

Dear All, Some relevant questions and good reply. I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus whether it is " rough " or " Soft" or any thing else. We are CCWG and not IETF. In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnned Pls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS" Regards Kavouss

2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com <mailto:wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>>:

Hi Arun,

Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet population of the country.

Regards, Rahul Sharma

On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, Arun Sukumar <arun.sukumar@nludelhi.ac.in <mailto: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 <tel:%2B91-9871943272>

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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

_______________________________________________ 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. http://www.avast.com

thanks to all I do nit believe that for every community we need to define modifier. I am not in favour of copying and definition from any community We should deal with each subject based on its merits snd in a case by case basis Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 22 Mar 2015, at 21:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus. And varying definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking about.

In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus.

The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont presume to define.

And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition which often depends on voting thresholds.

Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using modifiers of some sort.

As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to try and fathom.

avri

...

On 22-Mar-15 20:57, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Some relevant questions and good reply. I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus whether it is " rough " or " Soft" or any thing else. We are CCWG and not IETF. In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnned Pls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS" Regards Kavouss

2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>:

...

Hi Arun,

Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet population of the country.

Regards, Rahul Sharma

On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, 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 Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ 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. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

Dear Greg Sorry to be late in replying to your message. I regret that I disagree with definition of "consensus" as used by GNSO That is an inappropriate invention which does not match any international practice due to the fact that even when a minority disagree to an issue under discussion it is no longer fit with the general understanding of the sense of " consensus" which simply describe a case in which while a minority disagree with a conclusion but they do not express any objection yo that conclusion i.e. That minority COULD LIVE with that conclusion Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone

On 23 Mar 2015, at 22:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:

Whether we use modifiers before "consensus," we just need to have a common understanding of what is meant in a given situation when we say "consensus."

Within the GNSO, we typically don't use a modifier before "consensus." We know what is meant by "consensus" in the GNSO, particularly in the PDP context. It's defined in Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelinesl: "Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree" http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-13nov14-en.pdf

When we get out of the GNSO (like Hobbits leaving the Shire), we know that not everyone else defines "consensus" that way, so we resort to modifiers, to make sure that we are clearly understood.

If we are going to create new definitions of consensus for particular groups or processes, we need to be clear what they are, and make sure they can be identified in a way that distinguishes that "consensus" from GNSO "consensus" or GAC "consensus" or IETF "consensus." If we are going to borrow existing consensus definitions, we still need to make sure they can be identified and distinguished from other variant forms of "consensus." Modifiers seem like a straightforward way to do so. If there are other ways to do so, I am open to hearing about them. If certain kinds of modifiers create problems, we can avoid those modifiers. We could even use colors -- the modifiers just need to lead us to the right meaning, they don't need to have meaning in and of themselves.

Greg Shatan

...

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: thanks to all I do nit believe that for every community we need to define modifier. I am not in favour of copying and definition from any community We should deal with each subject based on its merits snd in a case by case basis Kavouss

Sent from my iPhone

...

On 22 Mar 2015, at 21:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:

Hi,

In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus. And varying definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking about.

In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus.

The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont presume to define.

And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition which often depends on voting thresholds.

Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using modifiers of some sort.

As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to try and fathom.

avri

...

On 22-Mar-15 20:57, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Some relevant questions and good reply. I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus whether it is " rough " or " Soft" or any thing else. We are CCWG and not IETF. In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnned Pls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS" Regards Kavouss

2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>:

...

Hi Arun,

Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet population of the country.

Regards, Rahul Sharma

On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, 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 Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance 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

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ 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. www.avast.com

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com

Greg and all, in the early stage of the ICG there was an extensive discussion on how to make decision and in particular with regards to finding consensus. As a basis I’ve introduced the related GNSO process you and others are referring to. It turned out that this approach wasn’t fully acceptable by ICG members, and the result is the “ICG Guidelines for Decision Making“ which you may find here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icg-guidelines-decision-making-1... Transparency of the consensus building process of the various groups providing proposals for IANA stewardship transition is of utmost importance. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Greg Shatan Sent: Tuesday, March 24, 2015 6:18 PM To: Kavouss Arasteh Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Meeting with CCWG Advisors Dear Kavouss, Thank you for your email. I am sorry you disagree with the decision that was made a number of years ago to adopt that level of consensus in the GNSO and to call it "consensus." However, this definition of "consensus" is a fact -- this is the de jure standard for consensus in the GNSO. While one can disapprove of a fact, I'm not sure that one can disagree with a fact (at least, not with any effect). Since it is a fact, we will need to deal with it as such. In order to communicate between sectors of the community about consensus, we need to make sure we know what one means when one says consensus. Since we don't all mean the same thing, we need modifiers to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding. As to whether this matches any international practice, I believe it matches the practice of the IETF; although they call it "rough consensus," it is their general decision-making threshold ("We believe in rough consensus and running code...."). So, at least in this corner of the world, we are not alone. Best regards, Greg . On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 3:35 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Greg Sorry to be late in replying to your message. I regret that I disagree with definition of "consensus" as used by GNSO That is an inappropriate invention which does not match any international practice due to the fact that even when a minority disagree to an issue under discussion it is no longer fit with the general understanding of the sense of " consensus" which simply describe a case in which while a minority disagree with a conclusion but they do not express any objection yo that conclusion i.e. That minority COULD LIVE with that conclusion Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 23 Mar 2015, at 22:45, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: Whether we use modifiers before "consensus," we just need to have a common understanding of what is meant in a given situation when we say "consensus." Within the GNSO, we typically don't use a modifier before "consensus." We know what is meant by "consensus" in the GNSO, particularly in the PDP context. It's defined in Section 3.6 of the GNSO Working Group Guidelinesl: "Consensus - a position where only a small minority disagrees, but most agree" http://gnso.icann.org/en/council/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-13nov14-en.pdf When we get out of the GNSO (like Hobbits leaving the Shire), we know that not everyone else defines "consensus" that way, so we resort to modifiers, to make sure that we are clearly understood. If we are going to create new definitions of consensus for particular groups or processes, we need to be clear what they are, and make sure they can be identified in a way that distinguishes that "consensus" from GNSO "consensus" or GAC "consensus" or IETF "consensus." If we are going to borrow existing consensus definitions, we still need to make sure they can be identified and distinguished from other variant forms of "consensus." Modifiers seem like a straightforward way to do so. If there are other ways to do so, I am open to hearing about them. If certain kinds of modifiers create problems, we can avoid those modifiers. We could even use colors -- the modifiers just need to lead us to the right meaning, they don't need to have meaning in and of themselves. Greg Shatan On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:02 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote: thanks to all I do nit believe that for every community we need to define modifier. I am not in favour of copying and definition from any community We should deal with each subject based on its merits snd in a case by case basis Kavouss Sent from my iPhone On 22 Mar 2015, at 21:52, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote: Hi, In ICANN, we do have modifiers before Consensus. And varying definitions depending on which of the SOAC or processes we are talking about. In GNSO PDP processes we talk about Full Consensus versus Consensus and that definiton of Consensus is not all that diffferent from the IETF defintion of rough consensus; though we often use polls instead of humming to help figure out how to continue the discussion toward consensus. The GNSO definition is different from the GAC deffintion which I wont presume to define. And in defining ICANN Consensus Policy, we have yet another definition which often depends on voting thresholds. Personally I find it hard to talk about Consensus in ICANN without using modifiers of some sort. As for an ICG definition of Consensus, that is beyond my pay grade to try and fathom. avri On 22-Mar-15 20:57, Kavouss Arasteh wrote: Dear All, Some relevant questions and good reply. I strongly oppose any adjustive before consensus whether it is " rough " or " Soft" or any thing else. We are CCWG and not IETF. In ICG that term even though proposed was abandonnned Pls kindly do not interpret " CONSENSUS" Regards Kavouss 2015-03-22 19:18 GMT+01:00 Rahul Sharma <wisdom.stoic@gmail.com>: Hi Arun, Just thinking aloud on the substance pointer raised - can multistakholder model be evolved in a manner that ensures proportional representation in communities, forums, structures and Board. When I say proportional, I mean proportional to Internet population of the country. Regards, Rahul Sharma On 22 March 2015 at 15:04, 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 Senior Fellow, Centre for Communication Governance 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ 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. www.avast.com _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community -- Gregory S. Shatan ï Abelman Frayne & Schwab Partner | IP | Technology | Media | Internet 666 Third Avenue | New York, NY 10017-5621 Direct 212-885-9253 | Main 212-949-9022 Fax 212-949-9190 | Cell 917-816-6428 gsshatan@lawabel.com ICANN-related: gregshatanipc@gmail.com www.lawabel.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community