Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat. I would be curious to see the Board's response to that. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi, Oh yeah, I can see them really lining up behind a shadow board. avri On 30-Sep-15 15:16, Greg Shatan wrote:
We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat.
I would be curious to see the Board's response to that.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172>/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The Single Member does not have a Board. It is a counting mechanism of the votes cast / consensus arrived at by the participating SOs/ACs. Jordan On 1 October 2015 at 08:16, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat.
I would be curious to see the Board's response to that.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ* +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
Avri: I prefer to think of it as a "mirror board". "Shadow" has unintended connotations, especially in parliamentary systems like the U.K. Jordan: As an unincorporated association, the Single Member can have a Board, should we choose to give it one. That might raise more problems than it solves, however. As a variation, we could assign "voting" and "advising" "slots" to the Single Member that mirror the seats on the Board. Greg On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
The Single Member does not have a Board. It is a counting mechanism of the votes cast / consensus arrived at by the participating SOs/ACs.
Jordan
On 1 October 2015 at 08:16, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat.
I would be curious to see the Board's response to that.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
I think Greg was joking, Jordan … :) 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 From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:34 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem The Single Member does not have a Board. It is a counting mechanism of the votes cast / consensus arrived at by the participating SOs/ACs. Jordan On 1 October 2015 at 08:16, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat. I would be curious to see the Board's response to that. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597 <tel:202-559-8597> /Direct 202-559-8750 <tel:202-559-8750> /Fax 202-255-6172 <tel:202-255-6172> /Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> > wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz <http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet
But it sure would simplify that whole “interim Board” or “replacement Board” solution…. ;-) From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:49 PM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem I think Greg was joking, Jordan … ☺ Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: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...> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:34 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem The Single Member does not have a Board. It is a counting mechanism of the votes cast / consensus arrived at by the participating SOs/ACs. Jordan On 1 October 2015 at 08:16, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat. I would be curious to see the Board's response to that. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet
I feel comfortable that we start to realise that consensus id also considered as an alternative to voting. Kavousd Sent from my iPhone
On 30 Sep 2015, at 21:53, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
But it sure would simplify that whole “interim Board” or “replacement Board” solution…. ;-)
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:49 PM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
I think Greg was joking, Jordan … J
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
From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:34 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
The Single Member does not have a Board. It is a counting mechanism of the votes cast / consensus arrived at by the participating SOs/ACs.
Jordan
On 1 October 2015 at 08:16, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat.
I would be curious to see the Board's response to that.
On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
<ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive InternetNZ
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
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
Consensus is always a good thing, unless it’s used to prevent progress or taking action. Years back, we followed what I’ll call the “classical” definition of consensus, i.e., unanimity. Problem was, we were unable to close on certain issues despite significant agreement because there were always a few parties with differing opinions. Consequently, we were marginalized on those issues as an organization. If we mean “general or widespread agreement” as per the Collins English Dictionary (Complete and Unabridged), and that perspective is spelled out in whatever rules of engagement get adopted, then again, consensus is a good thing. Ken From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kavouss Arasteh Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:57 PM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem I feel comfortable that we start to realise that consensus id also considered as an alternative to voting. Kavousd Sent from my iPhone On 30 Sep 2015, at 21:53, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: But it sure would simplify that whole “interim Board” or “replacement Board” solution…. ;-) From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Rosenzweig Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:49 PM To: 'Jordan Carter'; 'Greg Shatan' Cc: 'Accountability Cross Community' Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem I think Greg was joking, Jordan … ☺ Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto: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...> From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 3:34 PM To: Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> Cc: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem The Single Member does not have a Board. It is a counting mechanism of the votes cast / consensus arrived at by the participating SOs/ACs. Jordan On 1 October 2015 at 08:16, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: We could even go so far as to suggest that the Single Member have a board that mirrors the ICANN board, seat by seat. I would be curious to see the Board's response to that. On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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 -- Jordan Carter Chief Executive InternetNZ +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> 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
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements? Alan At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: <http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/>http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/>www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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
I wasn't entirely joking. A parallel board may not be the way, but something that has contributions from the community in roughly parallel terms to the Board can't easily be criticized as a "concentration of power." Especially by those set up in a similar fashion. A Board may not be the solution, since Boards (like members) tend to get powers beyond those you expressly want; and then you have to box in the Board to avoid having them use those powers (sound familiar?). The grouping could be designated something other than a Board -- The High Council or the Cross-Community Conclave (CCC). Aside from the NomCom issue (and yes, you could have a multistakeholder committee select the remaining seats from among the community), it's not all that difficult. The larger point though is that to avoid concentration of power, we have to include everyone in an appropriate way at the appropriate time. Kieren's suggestion is actually quite a good example of that. Everybody gets a part in the school play. All the parents are happy. As for the "transparency" question, I think we got so caught up in powers and bylaws, that we didn't really focus on transparency. We were all "A" and no "T", so to speak. We touched on it in discussing DIDP reform and the member's inspection right, but not a more general discussion on "sunshine" measures. I'm sure that would be a welcome addition to our next draft (said non-ironically about the community, semi-ironically about the Board) (semi- because I'm an optimist). Greg On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements?
Alan
At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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
As much as I admire PMQs, I think I associate with an earlier comment that the idea is not to set up a permanent opposition, it’s just to have another branch of governance to share power with. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 4:15 PM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem I wasn't entirely joking. A parallel board may not be the way, but something that has contributions from the community in roughly parallel terms to the Board can't easily be criticized as a "concentration of power." Especially by those set up in a similar fashion. A Board may not be the solution, since Boards (like members) tend to get powers beyond those you expressly want; and then you have to box in the Board to avoid having them use those powers (sound familiar?). The grouping could be designated something other than a Board -- The High Council or the Cross-Community Conclave (CCC). Aside from the NomCom issue (and yes, you could have a multistakeholder committee select the remaining seats from among the community), it's not all that difficult. The larger point though is that to avoid concentration of power, we have to include everyone in an appropriate way at the appropriate time. Kieren's suggestion is actually quite a good example of that. Everybody gets a part in the school play. All the parents are happy. As for the "transparency" question, I think we got so caught up in powers and bylaws, that we didn't really focus on transparency. We were all "A" and no "T", so to speak. We touched on it in discussing DIDP reform and the member's inspection right, but not a more general discussion on "sunshine" measures. I'm sure that would be a welcome addition to our next draft (said non-ironically about the community, semi-ironically about the Board) (semi- because I'm an optimist). Greg On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements? Alan At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597<tel:202-559-8597>/Direct 202-559-8750<tel:202-559-8750>/Fax 202-255-6172<tel:202-255-6172>/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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
HI Alan, I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that. This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort. I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting. Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM To: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements? Alan At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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
Having responded one way regarding transparency issues, I'm going to respond another way. We should not be diverted by the thought of adding significant transparency changes to what we already have. We need to focus. There are worthy concerns that are not fully addressed in WS1, and that is unfortunate. But the core of our proposal is at risk. We need to bear down on filling in the gaps, resolving concerns from within and without, and generally tighten things up. Our work needs to be interpolation and renovation, not extrapolation. We should be open-minded as to processes that can advance these efforts. Our proposal needs a significant upgrade in clarity and intelligibility. This has been a big and unwieldy beast; we all know that. Explane has been a great help in painting a picture at the highest level, but we can't put the Explane proposal forward; it's just a teaching aid. The full proposal may also be a form of reference; but, as the main thing that people need to comprehend, it leaves much to be desired. We need a readable, cogent, coherent, logical piece that tells the reader what our proposal is, with enough detail to avoid FUD-like responses, but without getting bogged down in the weeds. I hesitate to call it an "Executive Summary," because it should be able to stand on its own. We can have annexes for the deep dives and the methodology, etc. But the heart of the document needs to be right up front, and it needs to be compelling. Greg On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:59 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
HI Alan,
I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that.
This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort.
I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting.
Best,
Ed Morris
------------------------------ *From*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent*: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM *To*: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements?
Alan
At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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
Ed, I didn't ask why we had not ever discussed it, but rather why we are now saying it had to be included in the current proposal. I was a member of the ATRT2 and am more than painfully aware how ineffective the DIDP is, and I have LONG campaigned for more transparency and availability of internal documents. The CCWG process is somewhat stalled due to the reaction of the Board to our draft proposal, but it was the draft that the CCWG was planning to make some final adjustments to and submit as final. The transparency and access issues were not mentioned. I believe that it is a WS2 issue and discussing it now will do nothing but obfuscate the real issues that we need to address. Alan At 30/09/2015 06:59 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
HI Alan,
I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that.
This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort.
I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM To: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements?
Alan
At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: <http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/>http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/>www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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
Given Larry Strickling's statement about the readiness of our report, "final adjustments" is probably an understatement. The overall framework may only need final adjustments, but we have some significant gaps to fill and a communications approach that may need a significant re-think. Greg On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 8:00 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Ed, I didn't ask why we had not ever discussed it, but rather why we are now saying it had to be included in the current proposal. I was a member of the ATRT2 and am more than painfully aware how ineffective the DIDP is, and I have LONG campaigned for more transparency and availability of internal documents.
The CCWG process is somewhat stalled due to the reaction of the Board to our draft proposal, but it was the draft that the CCWG was planning to make some final adjustments to and submit as final. The transparency and access issues were not mentioned. I believe that it is a WS2 issue and discussing it now will do nothing but obfuscate the real issues that we need to address.
Alan
At 30/09/2015 06:59 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
HI Alan,
I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that.
This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort.
I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting.
Best,
Ed Morris
------------------------------ *From*: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Sent*: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM *To*: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject*: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements?
Alan
At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
_______________________________________________ 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
Hi Alan, I agree with you - if the proposal stays as it is the current arrangement is acceptable. If, however, WS2 is abandoned in favour of ATRT3 or some other form of continuous improvement, per the Board , or we move away from a membership based model or make, as has been posited, the threshold for accessing the inspection right virtually impossible to reach, then transparency may become an unintended casualty of these changes to our reference model and work plan. My initial post was in response to a well intended suggestion to explore such changes. If the basics of our current proposal, membership with realistic thresholds and a viable WS 2 work program, remain the same there is no need to deal with this right now. If, however, some of the proposed changes are made, then re-introducing transparency into the discussion is not, as you suggest, obfuscation, but rather a good faith effort to ensure that that transparency reforms are not collateral damage in attempts to solve other problems. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 1:37 AM To: egmorris1@toast.net, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem Ed, I didn't ask why we had not ever discussed it, but rather why we are now saying it had to be included in the current proposal. I was a member of the ATRT2 and am more than painfully aware how ineffective the DIDP is, and I have LONG campaigned for more transparency and availability of internal documents. The CCWG process is somewhat stalled due to the reaction of the Board to our draft proposal, but it was the draft that the CCWG was planning to make some final adjustments to and submit as final. The transparency and access issues were not mentioned. I believe that it is a WS2 issue and discussing it now will do nothing but obfuscate the real issues that we need to address. Alan At 30/09/2015 06:59 PM, Edward Morris wrote: HI Alan, I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that. This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort. I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting. Best, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM To: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements? Alan At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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
Agree in theory, but we did not include this in WS1, even when we were considering designators. I am reluctant to add something new at this stage. Alan At 30/09/2015 09:03 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
Hi Alan,
I agree with you - if the proposal stays as it is the current arrangement is acceptable. If, however, WS2 is abandoned in favour of ATRT3 or some other form of continuous improvement, per the Board , or we move away from a membership based model or make, as has been posited, the threshold for accessing the inspection right virtually impossible to reach, then transparency may become an unintended casualty of these changes to our reference model and work plan. My initial post was in response to a well intended suggestion to explore such changes. If the basics of our current proposal, membership with realistic thresholds and a viable WS 2 work program, remain the same there is no need to deal with this right now. If, however, some of the proposed changes are made, then re-introducing transparency into the discussion is not, as you suggest, obfuscation, but rather a good faith effort to ensure that that transparency reforms are not collateral damage in attempts to solve other problems.
Ed
---------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2015 1:37 AM To: egmorris1@toast.net, "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
Ed, I didn't ask why we had not ever discussed it, but rather why we are now saying it had to be included in the current proposal. I was a member of the ATRT2 and am more than painfully aware how ineffective the DIDP is, and I have LONG campaigned for more transparency and availability of internal documents.
The CCWG process is somewhat stalled due to the reaction of the Board to our draft proposal, but it was the draft that the CCWG was planning to make some final adjustments to and submit as final. The transparency and access issues were not mentioned. I believe that it is a WS2 issue and discussing it now will do nothing but obfuscate the real issues that we need to address.
Alan
At 30/09/2015 06:59 PM, Edward Morris wrote:
HI Alan,
I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that.
This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort.
I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting.
Best,
Ed Morris
---------- From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM To: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements?
Alan
At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: <http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/>http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - <http://www.avg.com/>www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>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 reply is to help inform today's discussion thread on Transparency. Our 2nd draft report includes the term transparency on 50 different pages. But what really matters is how we add greater transparency into WS1 proposals. See these elements: We propose a new commitment in ICANN Bylaws: COMMITMENT 1. In performing its Mission, ICANN must operate in a manner consistent with its Bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, carrying out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of international law and international conventions, and applicable local law and through open and transparent processes that enable competition and open entry in Internet-related markets. We propose a new element (blue text) for Core Value 2 in ICANN Bylaws: CORE VALUE 2. Seeking and supporting broad, informed participation reflecting the functional, geographic, and cultural diversity of the Internet at all levels of policy development and decision-making to ensure that the bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development process is used to ascertain the global public interest and that those processes are accountable and transparent; We require transparency as part of the new Community Forum (para 355 on p.53) We note that CWG-Stewardship requirement for IANA budget transparency in para 378: the CWG-Stewardship Final Proposal has expressed a requirement that the budget be transparent with respect to the IANA Function’s operating costs with clear itemization of such costs to the project level and below as needed. Our new requirement for an annual report on Transparency (para 511-512 on p.74): ICANN will produce an annual report on the state of improvements to Accountability and Transparency. We give all AoC review teams unprecedented access to ICANN internal documents. See Confidential Disclosure policy, para 521 – 527 on p.75. We require each AoC review team to be transparent about the degree of consensus achieved in their report. (para 529 on p.75) And for WS2, there’s this: Transparency: The community has expressed concerns regarding the ICANN document/information access policy and implementation. Free access to relevant information is an essential element of a robust independent review process. We recommend reviewing and enhancing the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) as part of the accountability enhancements in Work Stream 2. (p.43) The subject of SO and AC accountability should be included in the purview of the Accountability and Transparency Review process as part of Work Stream 2 working plan. (p.71) Instituting a culture of transparency within the ICANN organization: (p.121) o Limiting ICANN's ability to deny transparency and disclosure requests. o Enhancing the Ombudsman’s role and function. o Enhancing ICANN’s whistleblower policy. o Increasing transparency about ICANN interactions with governments. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Alan Greenberg Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 8:00 PM To: "egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>", Robin Gross, Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem Ed, I didn't ask why we had not ever discussed it, but rather why we are now saying it had to be included in the current proposal. I was a member of the ATRT2 and am more than painfully aware how ineffective the DIDP is, and I have LONG campaigned for more transparency and availability of internal documents. The CCWG process is somewhat stalled due to the reaction of the Board to our draft proposal, but it was the draft that the CCWG was planning to make some final adjustments to and submit as final. The transparency and access issues were not mentioned. I believe that it is a WS2 issue and discussing it now will do nothing but obfuscate the real issues that we need to address. Alan At 30/09/2015 06:59 PM, Edward Morris wrote: HI Alan, I've raised this issue intermittently throughout our work. In Istanbul, Steve DelBianco kindly called upon me to talk about the failings of the DIDP to highlight the problem. In Buenos Aires, I raised the issue again and Thomas suggested towards the end of the meeting that perhaps we could move some transparency reform to work stream 1. Nothing became of that. This is not something we want to do in a rushed manner. Although simplistic on the face, much of what we need to do here is quite technical, involves state specific statutes (privacy, for example) and needs to be done carefully with the community working closely with ICANN staff, even in areas we may have some differences, in order to achieve an optimal outcome. I was quite happy with the status quo reference model whereby the community would have access in extraordinary situations to the most important documentation fairly soon through WS! (inspection rights via membership) while the more comprehensive and structural reforms would be developed in WS2. Now that we're faced with apparently serious proposals to eliminate both WS 2 (Board proposal) and membership, consideration needs to be given to other ways to tackle transparency within the CCWG effort. I should let people know that I've been working with Farzaneh Badii and Sarah Clayton on an analysis of all DIDP requests and responses. We're looking not only at quantifying things like success rates and DCND (defined conditions of nondisclosure) rejection rates but are also attempting to evaluate whether concerns that have been expressed to me privately by multiple Board members (for example, improper use of the DIDP by litigants in legal actions against ICANN as a substitution for / replacement of permissible discovery) are valid. The project is well underway and we hope to be able to present the results to everyone prior to our Dublin meeting. Best, Ed Morris ________________________________ From: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:55 PM To: "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>>, "Accountability Cross Community" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] A way to avoid the 'The Single Member Can Do Anything!' problem How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements? Alan At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote: Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN. Robin On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote: Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Hi Jordan, I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended. --That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers. I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line"; --- On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains. Kieren ----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms. I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance. Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds. And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else. Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition. Best, Ed - I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333: The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member. This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause. It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN. The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right. No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c> _______________________________________________ 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
On 30/09/2015 20:54, Alan Greenberg wrote:
How is it that this was not on our original list of requirements?
I believe it was moved to WS2 on the theory that WS1 would deliver such improvements in accountability that anything we wanted in WS2 would be assured (and that reaching that condition was the aim of WS1). In the interim, I don't think we have held WS1 to such a high standard, but YMMV.
Alan
At 30/09/2015 03:08 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
Agree 100%. We would be sorely amiss in our duty to enhance ICANN's accountability if we did not address the concerns about transparency in decision making at ICANN.
Robin
On Sep 30, 2015, at 11:26 AM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Transparency of Board meetings and deliberations is long overdue and sorely needed. It should be the rule with very narrow exceptions.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell
Twitter: @VLawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
Sent from my iPad
On Sep 29, 2015, at 10:24 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
I appreciate the spirit in which this thread is intended.
--That is, aside from the five community powers and the ability to enforce the bylaws against the Board, the other powers the California law grants to member/s (document inspection, dissolve the company, etc), should face such high thresholds to action that they can, practically speaking, never be actioned at all. So how to resolve this? The CCWG's choice of a Single Member (following its earlier choice of multiple members) was to meet the accountability requirements the community has asked for. But nobody asked for the community to have these other powers.
I disagree with this premise with regards the inspection right. I've certainly made that a central component of what I've tried to accomplish here. Kieren has been a strong advocate, as well, calling it a "red line";
---
On 07/08/2015 11:37 PM, Kieren McCarthy wrote: A quick view specifically on "rights of inspection". I think enabling that some entity gets this right would be one of the most useful of all possible accountability improvements. It would - perhaps over time - pull out any motivations that might exist for ICANN to be misleading or less than truthful in its reporting. This is going to be especially important as ICANN receives increasingly large amounts of revenue and particularly given its current weak financial controls. (See: http://www.ionmag.asia/2015/07/icann-finances-swallow-the-money/) I predict that ICANN corporate will fight hard to prevent any entity from gaining this right. And that it will continue to fight hard even when someone has that right. That in itself should be a good indicator for why it should be a redline for the accountability group. To my mind, not allowing ICANN to hide information is the epitome of actual accountability. If you can't hide it, then to save on embarrassment you consider how best to share it. Over time, everyone gains.
Kieren
----- I agree with Kieren. One of the reasons I've been content with putting transparency in work stream 2 is I've known the Inspection right came with membership in work stream 1. If that is to be excised then we need to do transparency in work stream 1. You can not have accountability without transparency. I've been involved in reconsideration requests where we have fought and lost in our attempts to get documents from ICANN that would have allowed us to have a chance of winning either the reconsideration or the IRP that would conceivably follow. Without access to documents many of the reforms we're proposing will be of minimal value to litigants. Of course, I await the specifics of the discovery mechanisms that will accompany the IRP and reconsideration reforms.
I've watched as many "fears" of the legally uneducated became "truths" when repeated enough. I saw the concept of the derivative lawsuit, a power that should be welcomed by anyone interested in true accountability, so misconstrued and tangled CCWG members and participants acted out of fear this legal right could be used on a regular basis for anything, rather than what it is: a remedy designed for use in extreme situations as protection against double dealing and other types of corporate malfeasance.
Rather than try to explain Inspection beyond what Kiernen has done above let me ask this: 1. Why don't we want the right of Inspection (aka in ICANN circles as the Auerbach rights)? 2. If we have them why do we want to create high thresholds for the use of those powers? Tell me how these two positions strengthen ICANN's accountability to a greater degree than inspection rights with low thresholds.
And, perhaps most of all, where has the discussion occurred leading one and all to believe that we don't want these rights? Point to the thread, the legal advice etc. I've seen the big FUD over derivative rights. Where is something similar, or honest rejection of Inspection rights? Don't assume these are not important issues to some of us merely because we haven't been discussing them. They were in all of the proposals that have gone out for public comment. There is little need to fight for something you already have. I'm looking forward to receiving an analysis of the public comments to see this outpouring of opposition to the inspection rights. It must be there because I'm hard pressed to find extensive opposition anywhere else.
Do we need these rights? Well, if we are going to dump them we need a complete revamp of ICANN's transparency policy to be done in work stream 1. No transparency, no accountability. No accountability, no transition.
Best,
Ed
- I reproduce here California Corporations Code §8333:
The accounting books and records and minutes of proceedings of the members and the board and committees of the board shall be open to inspection upon the written demand on the corporation of any member at any reasonable time, for a purpose reasonably related to such person's interests as a member.
This is the heart of the Inspection right. It is so key I'll give it a name: the Anti-FIFA clause.
It is a guarantee the corruption at FIFA will not happen at the new ICANN.
The anti-FIFA clause is the principle reason I strongly support the Inspection right.
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com/> Version: 2015.0.6140 / Virus Database: 4419/10680 - Release Date: 09/22/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date. <ATT00001.c>
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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
participants (14)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Avri Doria -
Chartier, Mike S -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Jordan Carter -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Robin Gross -
Salaets, Ken -
Steve DelBianco