Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs, As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go. Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability. Thanks, Phil Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information. With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc. We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year. If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality. I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily. (Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . ) Nigel Roberts On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
I would argue that transparency must be broader. As a member, the right to inspect would be backed by U.S. law. As a designator, it would be enforced by incorporation into the bylaws. Thus, the lesser legal standing should be augmented by greater means and avenues to examine ICANN's activities, which would be instrumental in making the case to the community that ICANN is acting contrary to the wishes of the community and, thereby, spurring action up the enforcement escalation path. Yes, I now have posting privileges. I hope we all do not come to regret it. :-) Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:25 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily. (Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . ) Nigel Roberts On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
I believe you are both in agreement. The further advantage of building in such rights is that they wouldn't be dependent upon California law, which of course can change, or even the legal domicile of ICANN, should that eventually change. With respect to whether we can count on 'process improvements' to achieve the desired enhancements of ICANN accountability, it brings to mind a Reagan adage: 'Trust but verify.' If indeed the board is willing to implement such improvements in a timely manner, then the existence of such community rights is inconsequential because they won't need to be exercised. On the other hand, the availability of such rights of enforcement is the insurance policy that said improvements will actually be implemented. These rights need to be fully constituted before the transition, i.e., while the community retains certain leverage and persuasion. What happens after the transition is anyone's guess, realistically, but existing rights of enforcement will add a significant degree of predictability and trust to the process. Ken -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Schaefer, Brett Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:36 PM To: Nigel Roberts; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting I would argue that transparency must be broader. As a member, the right to inspect would be backed by U.S. law. As a designator, it would be enforced by incorporation into the bylaws. Thus, the lesser legal standing should be augmented by greater means and avenues to examine ICANN's activities, which would be instrumental in making the case to the community that ICANN is acting contrary to the wishes of the community and, thereby, spurring action up the enforcement escalation path. Yes, I now have posting privileges. I hope we all do not come to regret it. :-) Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Nigel Roberts Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:25 PM To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily. (Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . ) Nigel Roberts On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hello Brett,
Yes, I now have posting privileges. I hope we all do not come to regret it. :-)
Welcome to the list and thank you for your contributions. You may however come to regret the number of emails you will now receive per day :-) Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Not sure that’s a fair characterisation, Nigel. Speaking personally, I have been crystal clear that one of my major concerns with the membership model was the statutory rights. I see the current draft from a small group re ‘transparency’ as a severe case of ‘mission creep’ as outlined by Greg. It’s ironic that many of those with the loudest voices of concern re ICANN’s alleged propensity to mission creep are now doing precisely that. It serves to underline the point I have consistently made about the need for community accountability along with Board/staff accountability. auDA's acceptance of the designator model is based on the premise that the only power of the designator is to be the legal entity that has standing to go to arbitration and if necessary to court. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 30 Oct 2015, at 05:25 , Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily.
(Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . )
Nigel Roberts
On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Chris, That’s a gross exaggeration. Greater transparency has always been in the accountability discussion. It was the Board’s rejection of membership that precipitated calls for moving transparency forward. There is a debate ongoing as to how much of the transparency work should be moved forward to WS1, but that is a debate on timing, not mission. If membership is reconsidered, I think most would be willing to relegate transparency entirely back to WS2. Brett ________________________________ Brett Schaefer Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy The Heritage Foundation 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-608-6097 heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Chris Disspain Sent: Thursday, October 29, 2015 2:44 PM To: Nigel Roberts Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG / Budget veto/ Financial reporting Not sure that’s a fair characterisation, Nigel. Speaking personally, I have been crystal clear that one of my major concerns with the membership model was the statutory rights. I see the current draft from a small group re ‘transparency’ as a severe case of ‘mission creep’ as outlined by Greg. It’s ironic that many of those with the loudest voices of concern re ICANN’s alleged propensity to mission creep are now doing precisely that. It serves to underline the point I have consistently made about the need for community accountability along with Board/staff accountability. auDA's acceptance of the designator model is based on the premise that the only power of the designator is to be the legal entity that has standing to go to arbitration and if necessary to court. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W: www.auda.org.au<http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email. On 30 Oct 2015, at 05:25 , Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote: If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily. (Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . ) Nigel Roberts On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote: Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs, As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go. Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability. Thanks, Phil Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG Hello Greg, 6333. 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. The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information. With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc. We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year. If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality. I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes. Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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, My regret is that if ICANN the Corporation had implemented all of the transparency related recommendations that came out of ATRT, we might not be having this tussle right now. avri On 29-Oct-15 14:44, Chris Disspain wrote:
Not sure that’s a fair characterisation, Nigel. Speaking personally, I have been crystal clear that one of my major concerns with the membership model was the statutory rights.
I see the current draft from a small group re ‘transparency’ as a severe case of ‘mission creep’ as outlined by Greg. It’s ironic that many of those with the loudest voices of concern re ICANN’s alleged propensity to mission creep are now doing precisely that. It serves to underline the point I have consistently made about the need for community accountability along with Board/staff accountability.
auDA's acceptance of the designator model is based on the premise that the only power of the designator is to be the legal entity that has standing to go to arbitration and if necessary to court.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain| Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/>
auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator
*Important Notice****- *This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
On 30 Oct 2015, at 05:25 , Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> wrote:
If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily.
(Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . )
Nigel Roberts
On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
Nigel, There is the representation made by the several counsels retained that under California Corporations Code, member(s) creates a governance issue we're not prepared to address, either in the finite time available for a transition, or the infinite time available to come up with "membership" that isn't a clandestine status bump (note the pun) for the GNSO, ALAC, and perhaps one or more other AC (SSAC and RSSAC self-excluding) or SO, and solves the intractable problem we were unable to solve in 2002 -- what is general membership? Could you at least, for the purposes of discussion, assume that the stated concern is a real concern and not a convenient fiction? Eric On 10/29/15 11:25 AM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
If the proposed new "designator" accountability model is to have the same credibility as the Membership model originally proposed by the CCWG, it must have no less power in relation to financial transparency than members would have statutorily.
(Otherwise, the reasons for the perceived strong objection from ICANN to a membership model probably becomes crystal clear . . . )
Nigel Roberts
On 29/10/15 18:13, Phil Buckingham wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Good evening:
Could we take this offline … ?
Well, No. I love Phil's postings, but not as an ...
... independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Perhaps we could start with published minutes of the
… subgroup meeting in Dublin.
OK? CW On 29 Oct 2015, at 19:13, Phil Buckingham <phil@dotadvice.co.uk> wrote:
Hi Bruce, Fellow Board Members, Fadi, Co Chairs,
As a fellow CFO, I think Xavier, under Fadi's leadership, has made huge strides in ICANN's financial reporting and its underlying financial processes. However I agree with you,Bruce that there is still a long long way to go.
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget. Added to the fact, actual new gTLD registrations are 50% below budget . This concerns me enormously , particularly regarding the budget veto issue. Following the subgroup meeting in Dublin (that included Cherine, Asha, Xavier, Jonathan Z, Ray and myself ) Xavier has been tasked with building up the non discretionary / discretionary budgetary expenditure escalation ladder re the budget veto. This is a hugely complex task. Could we take this offline to discuss for me, working at ICANN, to shadow / work with Xavier as an independent on behalf of the CCWG Accountability.
Thanks,
Phil
Phil Buckingham -----Original Message----- From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin Sent: 29 October 2015 12:17 To: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
Hello Greg,
6333. 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.
The minutes are basically published today. The only minutes apparently that are not posted are compensation committee minutes – but even then we could at least note the items discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information.
With regard to financials– we are already moving towards the same standards as publicly listed companies in the USA. We now provide quarterly financial reporting, and a quarterly call where the community can question the CEO and the CFO on the income and expenditure. It would not be normal to provide people with access to the raw accounting system (in this case Great Plains) – which would include information on payments to all staff etc.
We do use an external auditor to validate our financials and processes once per year.
If there is a community concern about a particular financial matter (e.g concern about whether procurement policies were being followed) – then I think it would be more appropriate if the single legal entity that represents the community powers has the right to appoint an external auditor to validate any particular process or numbers and report back to the community. Audit firms have the appropriate skills to analyse financial accounting records and also have appropriate procedures in place for confidentiality.
I think we should be focussing on improving the processes we already have. I advocated moving to quarterly financial reporting, and I have certainly been a strong advocate of making things as public as possible, and welcome suggestions for improving our processes.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Phil,
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds
Well the auction funds are straight forward at the moment. They are completely segregated and won’t be spent until the ICANN community has completed its process on how these should be used. The amount of such funds is clearly reported publicly. My understanding is that most of the volunteer resources in the ICANN community are consumed by the IANA transition and accountability work - so there hasn’t been much work done on the how to use the auction funds yet. I am aware though that it is proposed to form a cross-community working group to consider the topic.
and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget.
This is more complex. One of the initiatives in the Board finance committee at the moment is trying to determine what level of reserve funds is appropriate for ICANN and whether the reserve should consist of different categories - e.g. a reserve against future new gTLD legal costs, a reserve for future security and stability issues etc. I think the Board finance committee would welcome your views on how to manage and report on reserve funds. Once a DRAFT policy is developed - I think it would also be appropriate to put out for public comment before it is approved by the Board. Feel free to reach out to Cherine and Asha on the reserve fund topic - as they are the co-chairs of the finance committee. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Phil, To add to Bruce’s comments about the auction proceeds, there is a discussion paper and a public comment period for that paper currently in progress. The public comment process closes on 8 Nov 2015, 10 days from now. For full information, see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-auction-proceeds-2015-09-08-e... . Steve On Oct 29, 2015, at 6:23 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Phil,
Dare I mention $60M gTLD auction proceeds
Well the auction funds are straight forward at the moment. They are completely segregated and won’t be spent until the ICANN community has completed its process on how these should be used. The amount of such funds is clearly reported publicly.
My understanding is that most of the volunteer resources in the ICANN community are consumed by the IANA transition and accountability work - so there hasn’t been much work done on the how to use the auction funds yet. I am aware though that it is proposed to form a cross-community working group to consider the topic.
and the $89.3 M "remaining balance" re new GTLDs as per the FY16 Operating Plan & Budget.
This is more complex.
One of the initiatives in the Board finance committee at the moment is trying to determine what level of reserve funds is appropriate for ICANN and whether the reserve should consist of different categories - e.g. a reserve against future new gTLD legal costs, a reserve for future security and stability issues etc.
I think the Board finance committee would welcome your views on how to manage and report on reserve funds. Once a DRAFT policy is developed - I think it would also be appropriate to put out for public comment before it is approved by the Board.
Feel free to reach out to Cherine and Asha on the reserve fund topic - as they are the co-chairs of the finance committee.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (10)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Chris Disspain -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Nigel Roberts -
Phil Buckingham -
Salaets, Ken -
Schaefer, Brett -
Steve Crocker