Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...> &modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2 page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: 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
Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Bruce,
As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been.
Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote: 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
Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Chris, To get a better sense of why you would be concerned about "broader" enforcement rights, could you please spell them out? What kind of mission creep are we talking about here - would you make the case for some information to be exempt from disclosure requirements and what would they be? Best, Arun -- Head, Cyber Initiative Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi http://amsukumar.tumblr.com +91-9871943272 On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:04 PM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 <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 _______________________________________________ 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
Chris, Sounds like you agree with my summary -- you are OK with the right of inspection, but not additional transparency measures. I would not describe the additional transparency measures as additional rights, though. Essentially, it boils down to improved DIDP with an appeals process for denials and disclosure of ICANN's government contacts ton fluency policy and expenditures for that purpose. Best, 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/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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><http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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><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><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><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><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
I'm also completely unclear on why the call was taken to include so many important transparency issues only in WS2. Since I am quite new to this whole ecosystem, could someone please enlighten me as to why this decision was taken, and by whom? Regards Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Chris,
Sounds like you agree with my summary -- you are OK with the right of inspection, but not additional transparency measures.
I would not describe the additional transparency measures as additional rights, though. Essentially, it boils down to improved DIDP with an appeals process for denials and disclosure of ICANN's government contacts ton fluency policy and expenditures for that purpose.
Best,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto: ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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><http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto: egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto: mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto: pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au
<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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><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><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><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><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
Dear Colleagues, It was an oversight on my side to omit to quote the agreed definition of WS1 / WS2 issues and this may have created some confusion in this thread. This is on §7 of the 2nd report which I quote below : Work Stream 1 mechanisms were defined as those that, when in place or committed to, would provide the community with confidence that any accountability mechanism to further enhance ICANN's accountability would be implemented if it had consensus support from the community, even if it were to encounter ICANN management resistance or if it were against the interest of ICANN as a corporate entity. As we move closer to our 3rd report, I believe this test remains quite relevant. Best Mathieu Weill De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Padmini Envoyé : vendredi 30 octobre 2015 12:50 À : Schaefer, Brett Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) I'm also completely unclear on why the call was taken to include so many important transparency issues only in WS2. Since I am quite new to this whole ecosystem, could someone please enlighten me as to why this decision was taken, and by whom? Regards Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote: Chris, Sounds like you agree with my summary -- you are OK with the right of inspection, but not additional transparency measures. I would not describe the additional transparency measures as additional rights, though. Essentially, it boils down to improved DIDP with an appeals process for denials and disclosure of ICANN's government contacts ton fluency policy and expenditures for that purpose. Best, 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/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 7:34 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204111> | F: +61 3 8341 4112 <tel:%2B61%203%208341%204112> 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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><http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%...> &modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2 Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...> &modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2 page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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><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><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><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><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
Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 30 Oct 2015 12:35, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: . I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
SO: Considering that designator is the enforcement vehicle/channel for participating SO/AC and considering that the designator will be a legal personhood, I agree that right to inspection should not be given to such personhood(which is Just a channel) but rather directly to the SO/AC(which creates the community decisions). That in itself will be a genuine act of transparency. Regards
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>
wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that
there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other
transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto: egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto: pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Chris, - I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. Thanks for this. We're in agreement, including I presume for a reasonably high level of consensus amongst the SO's and AC's to use the Inspection right. Really good to see. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
As a person who does not belong to any SO or AC, I strongly oppose only empowering SOs and ACs with the right to inspect or any such power related to transparency. The names policy affects the global community and many of us are not members of any SO or AC. The right to inspection/ or any right to transparency should be available to the global community even if the requesting individual is unaffiliated to ICANN. Community discussions or bottom-up processes wherein unaffiliated persons are not allowed access to information is an unacceptable power structure. This is why DIDP reforms need to be an essential part of WS1 transparency reforms. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Chris,
- I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
Thanks for this. We're in agreement, including I presume for a reasonably high level of consensus amongst the SO's and AC's to use the Inspection right. Really good to see.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
Once the Transparency "asks" start, they tend not to stop. Just hook another boxcar to the train.... If we give the Designator (as controlled by SO/ACs) the same inspection rights it would have if it were a member under California law, including the enforcement rights that accompany this, we have "bridged the gap." I can see some logic in also giving this right directly to the SOs and ACs that select voting members of the Board, since these SO/ACs are essentially "designators in fact." Anything more is mission creep. For reasons I have stated before, I think the purported distinction between "direct enforcement" and "indirect enforcement" is an intellectual fallacy. Dubbing board recall "indirect enforcement" makes it sound second best, and also implies that the Designator has no meaningful access to litigation. This is incorrect. Dubbing an IRP and enforcement litigation "direct enforcement" and treating as if it were something necessarily superior to board recall (in whole or in relevant part) is also a fantasy. However, if I were lawyer retained by the community and getting paid (rather than a volunteer community member), I would be rubbing my hands at the prospect of IRP and litigation, since I am likely to have 2-4 years of greatly enhanced income as the community battles the issues out with ICANN. Spilling the board, on the other hand, would be a bummer from a revenue point of view, since it faster and more straightforward. I'd probably get a couple dozen hours of counseling fees out of it, max. [Note: In real life, I tend to counsel clients toward pragmatic, goal-oriented and cost-effective solutions, rather than steering them toward the most lucrative option; but even then, stuff happens....] Greg On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote:
As a person who does not belong to any SO or AC, I strongly oppose only empowering SOs and ACs with the right to inspect or any such power related to transparency. The names policy affects the global community and many of us are not members of any SO or AC. The right to inspection/ or any right to transparency should be available to the global community even if the requesting individual is unaffiliated to ICANN. Community discussions or bottom-up processes wherein unaffiliated persons are not allowed access to information is an unacceptable power structure. This is why DIDP reforms need to be an essential part of WS1 transparency reforms.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Chris,
- I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
Thanks for this. We're in agreement, including I presume for a reasonably high level of consensus amongst the SO's and AC's to use the Inspection right. Really good to see.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Once the status quoists start stopping reforms, they tend to unhook one boxcar after the other till the train becomes just the engine. In this CCWG, we have moved the enforcement model from the defacto designator model to a legal designator model. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 10:58 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
Once the Transparency "asks" start, they tend not to stop. Just hook another boxcar to the train....
If we give the Designator (as controlled by SO/ACs) the same inspection rights it would have if it were a member under California law, including the enforcement rights that accompany this, we have "bridged the gap." I can see some logic in also giving this right directly to the SOs and ACs that select voting members of the Board, since these SO/ACs are essentially "designators in fact." Anything more is mission creep.
For reasons I have stated before, I think the purported distinction between "direct enforcement" and "indirect enforcement" is an intellectual fallacy. Dubbing board recall "indirect enforcement" makes it sound second best, and also implies that the Designator has no meaningful access to litigation. This is incorrect. Dubbing an IRP and enforcement litigation "direct enforcement" and treating as if it were something necessarily superior to board recall (in whole or in relevant part) is also a fantasy. However, if I were lawyer retained by the community and getting paid (rather than a volunteer community member), I would be rubbing my hands at the prospect of IRP and litigation, since I am likely to have 2-4 years of greatly enhanced income as the community battles the issues out with ICANN. Spilling the board, on the other hand, would be a bummer from a revenue point of view, since it faster and more straightforward. I'd probably get a couple dozen hours of counseling fees out of it, max. [Note: In real life, I tend to counsel clients toward pragmatic, goal-oriented and cost-effective solutions, rather than steering them toward the most lucrative option; but even then, stuff happens....]
Greg
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Guru Acharya <gurcharya@gmail.com> wrote:
As a person who does not belong to any SO or AC, I strongly oppose only empowering SOs and ACs with the right to inspect or any such power related to transparency. The names policy affects the global community and many of us are not members of any SO or AC. The right to inspection/ or any right to transparency should be available to the global community even if the requesting individual is unaffiliated to ICANN. Community discussions or bottom-up processes wherein unaffiliated persons are not allowed access to information is an unacceptable power structure. This is why DIDP reforms need to be an essential part of WS1 transparency reforms.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 5:31 PM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net> wrote:
Hi Chris,
- I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
Thanks for this. We're in agreement, including I presume for a reasonably high level of consensus amongst the SO's and AC's to use the Inspection right. Really good to see.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 11:37 AM, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
+1 On 10/30/2015 05:28 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Once the Transparency "asks" start, they tend not to stop. Just hook ...
If we give the Designator (as controlled by SO/ACs) the same inspection rights it would have if it were a member under California law, including the enforcement rights that accompany this, we have "bridged the gap."
I'm hardly a status quoist, and I'm not "stopping reforms." These additional issues will be addressed and should be addressed -- in WS2. So, I have no idea who or what you are referring to. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
+1
On 10/30/2015 05:28 PM, Greg Shatan wrote:
Once the Transparency "asks" start, they tend not to stop. Just hook
...
If we give the Designator (as controlled by SO/ACs) the same inspection rights it would have if it were a member under California law, including the enforcement rights that accompany this, we have "bridged the gap."
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measured approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you who have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that the entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model. I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold. Regards, Keith On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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: http://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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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><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><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><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 _______________________________________________ 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
This discussion thread suggests a real need for improved transparency in WS1, while avoiding significant new proposals at this late stage. Here’s a modest transparency improvement that could easily be done in WS1: Let’s expand the confidential disclosure policy we designed for AoC Review teams (page 75 of our 2nd draft). That was drafted with help from ICANN Legal, and has no opposition. Should be easy to extend that process to a "Transparency Team”. In keeping with our Dublin decision process, this Transparency Review team could be initiated at any time, upon petition by any 2 AC/SOs. Transparency Review Team members would be appointed by AC/SO chairs. Here’s the text from our 2nd draft report, page 75, regarding the AoC Review teams: Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:31 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model. I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold. Regards, Keith On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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:http://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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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><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><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><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 _______________________________________________ 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
Steve, I appreciate your effort to bridge differences. I assume this would be in addition to granting the right of inspection to the sole designator or the individual SOs and ACs? I think that would have to be the case to call this a patch. Even so, I think it is fair to say that this mechanism is too limited to meet the concerns that led for people to call for moving transparency forward to WS1. On the specific process, correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t this process: · Require SO/AC action to initiate a review team? So a DIDP request by an individual that is denied is final unless they can convince 2 SOs/ACs to propose setting up a Review Team? · Relegate a refusal to share documents to the Review Team or to allow disclosure to an appeal of the Board or Ombudsman, which is unlikely to succeed since ICANN (Board or staff) is the source of the denial in the first place. I do appreciate that there is a potential means for addressing this in the final point – “The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams” – but it needs to be developed. That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose. There has been a great deal of concern expressed over the time crunch and whether there is sufficient opportunity to get all of this done under the tight schedule. I think that we could do so if we trimmed down the to do list to a few core items and reserved the remainder for WS2. Specifically, I propose: · Granting the right of inspection to the sole designator in as outlined in California Corporations Code §§ 6310-3 and 6330-8. · Provide for independent appeal of DIDP decisions either to the IRP or to an independent review panel as outlined in p. 75 in Draft 2 provided that these options are available to individuals and businesses in addition to the sole designator or SOs/ACs. · Mandate a review and update of DIDP policies based on CCWG recommendations within 2 years with the goal of justifying denials with a specific harm and limiting the scope of non-disclosure. · Require ICANN to compile and publicly post a quarterly report providing: the names of individuals acting on ICANN’s behalf who have been in contact with a government official; the names and titles of such government officials; the date, nature and purpose of those government contacts; and a line item accounting of the amount ICANN spent on government engagement activities. I think this list would address most of the transparency concerns and be relatively simple to incorporate into the third draft as the most complicated issue – how to specifically alter the DIDP provisions – is pushed 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: Steve DelBianco [mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:03 AM To: kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg; Schaefer, Brett Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) This discussion thread suggests a real need for improved transparency in WS1, while avoiding significant new proposals at this late stage. Here’s a modest transparency improvement that could easily be done in WS1: Let’s expand the confidential disclosure policy we designed for AoC Review teams (page 75 of our 2nd draft). That was drafted with help from ICANN Legal, and has no opposition. Should be easy to extend that process to a "Transparency Team”. In keeping with our Dublin decision process, this Transparency Review team could be initiated at any time, upon petition by any 2 AC/SOs. Transparency Review Team members would be appointed by AC/SO chairs. Here’s the text from our 2nd draft report, page 75, regarding the AoC Review teams: Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosure by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-disclosure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Keith Drazek Date: Friday, October 30, 2015 at 10:31 AM To: Alan Greenberg Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model. I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold. Regards, Keith On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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:http://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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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><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><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><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 _______________________________________________ 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
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
Becky, I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints. Best, 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
Agree, but our time constraints are significant J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Becky, I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints. Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through. ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Agree, but our time constraints are significant J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Becky, I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints. Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs. The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members. It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership. For the rest, it should be WS2.... cheers Jordan On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
------------------------------ 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
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
*To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Agree, but our time constraints are significant
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Becky,
I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek < kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
_______________________________________________ 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 *
Hi, Owning to the fact that whoever is given the role to carry out the SD paper work cannot independently be conferred and exercise the inspection rights without the community's directive then I can agree with Jordan on this, although I sense it might be a fairly longer route but it's still fine. That said, I am okay either way, inspection is just an act of providing information to inform and also to probably decide if applicable. It may be more straight forward to confer those to the community directly but noting spoils it it's also requested/sent through the SD Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Nov 2015 06:44, "Jordan Carter" <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs.
The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members.
It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership.
For the rest, it should be WS2....
cheers Jordan
On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
------------------------------ 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
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
*To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Agree, but our time constraints are significant
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Becky,
I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek < kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
_______________________________________________ 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
Jordan, I feel like we are going around in circles. We have all agreed that the move from member to designators creates gaps in transparency and accountability that need to be addressed. Everyone agrees on the right of inspection issue (although some discussion continues on whether that right is only to the sole designator or also to the individual SOs and ACs). A significant number of participants have expressed the view that additional transparency issues need to be moved up considering that enforcement under the designator relies predominantly on removing directors. Others disagree and say that it was agreed months ago that this should be WS2. The response is that things have changed – the model was membership, it now is designator. That under this new model, it is even more important that individuals, businesses, and the SOs and ACs have access to information as a counterbalance and that if this had been known from the start that people would have insisted that transparency be WS1. There seems to be no real issue with pursuing these matters on substance, just a concern about the timeline. Steve offered one compromise. I offered another. Both are aimed at limiting the immediate work load to allow them to fit the timeline. Brett From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: Burr, Becky; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs. The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members. It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership. For the rest, it should be WS2.... cheers Jordan On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through. ________________________________ 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/> ________________________________ 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: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Agree, but our time constraints are significant J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Becky, I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints. Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose. _______________________________________________ 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'll restate my position that we should only replicate the rights of the member in the hands of the designator in WS1. We can consider expanding that to SO/ACs in WS2; i think there will be more variable and nuance and we'll need more time to work things through. Inspection is not so simple as Seun makes it seem. I don't want to overcomplicate it either, but there will be a number of points that will need to be addressed in terms of scope of request, purpose of request, scope of response, how inspection will be arranged, confidentiality, privilege, completeness, etc. Creating a DIDP appeals process (other than RfR) will also have its issues that need to be worked through. I think this is better left to WS2; i don't think the change from member to designator fundamentally affects this. I can already see that issues we have on our plate are not getting the attention they need to close them off, and that people are expressing surprise at various aspects of the proposal. I think we need to limit ourselves to the necessities in WS1, and also make darn sure that WS2 is a reality (e.g., by the bylaw that Mathieu points out). I think one reason you are not seeing more responses to this is that people are maxed out and don't even want to touch another issue -- so silence in this case does not indicate assent, it indicates burnout. Maybe if this were a corporate transaction or a legislative session, that would make this the ideal time to push something through with a minimum of attention given to it. I think that we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little better than corporate adversaries or politicians, so I would caution against using 11th hour fatigue as a platform. Greg On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org
wrote:
Jordan,
I feel like we are going around in circles.
We have all agreed that the move from member to designators creates gaps in transparency and accountability that need to be addressed.
Everyone agrees on the right of inspection issue (although some discussion continues on whether that right is only to the sole designator or also to the individual SOs and ACs).
A significant number of participants have expressed the view that additional transparency issues need to be moved up considering that enforcement under the designator relies predominantly on removing directors.
Others disagree and say that it was agreed months ago that this should be WS2.
The response is that things have changed – the model was membership, it now is designator. That under this new model, it is even more important that individuals, businesses, and the SOs and ACs have access to information as a counterbalance and that if this had been known from the start that people would have insisted that transparency be WS1.
There seems to be no real issue with pursuing these matters on substance, just a concern about the timeline.
Steve offered one compromise. I offered another. Both are aimed at limiting the immediate work load to allow them to fit the timeline.
Brett
*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett *Cc:* Burr, Becky; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs.
The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members.
It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership.
For the rest, it should be WS2....
cheers
Jordan
On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
------------------------------
*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
------------------------------ 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
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
*To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Agree, but our time constraints are significant
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Becky,
I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek < kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
_______________________________________________ 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
Greg, I think your criticism "we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little better than corporate adversaries or politicians" is better directed to the Board than me or others concerned about transparency. It was their rejection of membership that disrupted this timeline. I resent the implication that we are trying to push something through with minimal attention. How much more transparent can this get than raising it in Dublin discussions, offering proposals in public e-mails, and trying to raise the issue in the Adobe calls/discussions? I and others have been clear and sincere about our transparency concerns. I'll put it down to burnout on your part. I am worried that worship of the timeline is undermining our focus on getting this done right rather than on time. Brett On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I'll restate my position that we should only replicate the rights of the member in the hands of the designator in WS1. We can consider expanding that to SO/ACs in WS2; i think there will be more variable and nuance and we'll need more time to work things through. Inspection is not so simple as Seun makes it seem. I don't want to overcomplicate it either, but there will be a number of points that will need to be addressed in terms of scope of request, purpose of request, scope of response, how inspection will be arranged, confidentiality, privilege, completeness, etc. Creating a DIDP appeals process (other than RfR) will also have its issues that need to be worked through. I think this is better left to WS2; i don't think the change from member to designator fundamentally affects this. I can already see that issues we have on our plate are not getting the attention they need to close them off, and that people are expressing surprise at various aspects of the proposal. I think we need to limit ourselves to the necessities in WS1, and also make darn sure that WS2 is a reality (e.g., by the bylaw that Mathieu points out). I think one reason you are not seeing more responses to this is that people are maxed out and don't even want to touch another issue -- so silence in this case does not indicate assent, it indicates burnout. Maybe if this were a corporate transaction or a legislative session, that would make this the ideal time to push something through with a minimum of attention given to it. I think that we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little better than corporate adversaries or politicians, so I would caution against using 11th hour fatigue as a platform. Greg ________________________________ 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/> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Jordan, I feel like we are going around in circles. We have all agreed that the move from member to designators creates gaps in transparency and accountability that need to be addressed. Everyone agrees on the right of inspection issue (although some discussion continues on whether that right is only to the sole designator or also to the individual SOs and ACs). A significant number of participants have expressed the view that additional transparency issues need to be moved up considering that enforcement under the designator relies predominantly on removing directors. Others disagree and say that it was agreed months ago that this should be WS2. The response is that things have changed – the model was membership, it now is designator. That under this new model, it is even more important that individuals, businesses, and the SOs and ACs have access to information as a counterbalance and that if this had been known from the start that people would have insisted that transparency be WS1. There seems to be no real issue with pursuing these matters on substance, just a concern about the timeline. Steve offered one compromise. I offered another. Both are aimed at limiting the immediate work load to allow them to fit the timeline. Brett From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: Burr, Becky; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs. The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members. It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership. For the rest, it should be WS2.... cheers Jordan On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through. ________________________________ 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> ________________________________ 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Agree, but our time constraints are significant J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Becky, I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints. Best, Brett ________________________________ BrettSchaefer 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months. J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose. _______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (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
I completely agree with Brett. This rush to "call consensus" where indeed there is none, for the sole purpose of ending debate of critical issues is going to come back to bite us in the end. When people find out the dramatic shifts taken in the last couple of weeks, on very flimsy rationales, and arbitrary definitions of "consensus", our work's legitimacy will be further called into question. I know people are tired and want this to end, but we will regret this rush job in the end, as things that weren't ever thought through are suddenly being realized as the mistakes that they are. Shame we refuse to take the time to do the task justice. Robin On Nov 2, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Greg,
I think your criticism "we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little better than corporate adversaries or politicians" is better directed to the Board than me or others concerned about transparency. It was their rejection of membership that disrupted this timeline.
I resent the implication that we are trying to push something through with minimal attention. How much more transparent can this get than raising it in Dublin discussions, offering proposals in public e-mails, and trying to raise the issue in the Adobe calls/discussions? I and others have been clear and sincere about our transparency concerns. I'll put it down to burnout on your part.
I am worried that worship of the timeline is undermining our focus on getting this done right rather than on time.
Brett
On Nov 2, 2015, at 5:50 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote:
I'll restate my position that we should only replicate the rights of the member in the hands of the designator in WS1. We can consider expanding that to SO/ACs in WS2; i think there will be more variable and nuance and we'll need more time to work things through.
Inspection is not so simple as Seun makes it seem. I don't want to overcomplicate it either, but there will be a number of points that will need to be addressed in terms of scope of request, purpose of request, scope of response, how inspection will be arranged, confidentiality, privilege, completeness, etc.
Creating a DIDP appeals process (other than RfR) will also have its issues that need to be worked through. I think this is better left to WS2; i don't think the change from member to designator fundamentally affects this.
I can already see that issues we have on our plate are not getting the attention they need to close them off, and that people are expressing surprise at various aspects of the proposal. I think we need to limit ourselves to the necessities in WS1, and also make darn sure that WS2 is a reality (e.g., by the bylaw that Mathieu points out).
I think one reason you are not seeing more responses to this is that people are maxed out and don't even want to touch another issue -- so silence in this case does not indicate assent, it indicates burnout. Maybe if this were a corporate transaction or a legislative session, that would make this the ideal time to push something through with a minimum of attention given to it. I think that we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little better than corporate adversaries or politicians, so I would caution against using 11th hour fatigue as a platform.
Greg
________________________________ 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/>
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Jordan,
I feel like we are going around in circles.
We have all agreed that the move from member to designators creates gaps in transparency and accountability that need to be addressed. Everyone agrees on the right of inspection issue (although some discussion continues on whether that right is only to the sole designator or also to the individual SOs and ACs).
A significant number of participants have expressed the view that additional transparency issues need to be moved up considering that enforcement under the designator relies predominantly on removing directors.
Others disagree and say that it was agreed months ago that this should be WS2.
The response is that things have changed – the model was membership, it now is designator. That under this new model, it is even more important that individuals, businesses, and the SOs and ACs have access to information as a counterbalance and that if this had been known from the start that people would have insisted that transparency be WS1.
There seems to be no real issue with pursuing these matters on substance, just a concern about the timeline.
Steve offered one compromise. I offered another. Both are aimed at limiting the immediate work load to allow them to fit the timeline.
Brett
From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett Cc: Burr, Becky; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg; accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs.
The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members.
It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership.
For the rest, it should be WS2....
cheers Jordan
On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
________________________________ 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
________________________________ 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Agree, but our time constraints are significant
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Becky,
I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints.
Best,
Brett
________________________________ BrettSchaefer 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<tel:202-608-6097> heritage.org<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...> From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM To: Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>; Alan Greenberg Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
J. Beckwith Burr Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
From: <Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Date: Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco@netchoice.org>>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
_______________________________________________ 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<tel:%2B64-4-495-2118> (office) | +64-21-442-649<tel:%2B64-21-442-649> (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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
It seem we are in agreement on what should be in WS1 Greg just that you seem to be better at writing more details than myself. :-) As to the difficulty of assigning to SO/AC viz the SD, are you saying that "scope of request, purpose of request, scope of response, how inspection will be arranged, confidentiality, privilege, completeness, etc." will not be an issue to consider if under SD OR you are saying that even though we still need to define scope, privilege et all in WS2 inspection rights would be temporarily safe under the SD for the time being since there will be community process required to execute such power. If for the later then it's well understood but I will like to hear further rationale/explanation if the former is the case (and if none-of the above). Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 3 Nov 2015 07:50, "Greg Shatan" <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I'll restate my position that we should only replicate the rights of the member in the hands of the designator in WS1. We can consider expanding that to SO/ACs in WS2; i think there will be more variable and nuance and we'll need more time to work things through.
Inspection is not so simple as Seun makes it seem. I don't want to overcomplicate it either, but there will be a number of points that will need to be addressed in terms of scope of request, purpose of request, scope of response, how inspection will be arranged, confidentiality, privilege, completeness, etc.
Creating a DIDP appeals process (other than RfR) will also have its issues that need to be worked through. I think this is better left to WS2; i don't think the change from member to designator fundamentally affects this.
I can already see that issues we have on our plate are not getting the attention they need to close them off, and that people are expressing surprise at various aspects of the proposal. I think we need to limit ourselves to the necessities in WS1, and also make darn sure that WS2 is a reality (e.g., by the bylaw that Mathieu points out).
I think one reason you are not seeing more responses to this is that people are maxed out and don't even want to touch another issue -- so silence in this case does not indicate assent, it indicates burnout. Maybe if this were a corporate transaction or a legislative session, that would make this the ideal time to push something through with a minimum of attention given to it. I think that we need to treat our fellow multistakeholders a little better than corporate adversaries or politicians, so I would caution against using 11th hour fatigue as a platform.
Greg
On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:02 PM, Schaefer, Brett < Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Jordan,
I feel like we are going around in circles.
We have all agreed that the move from member to designators creates gaps in transparency and accountability that need to be addressed.
Everyone agrees on the right of inspection issue (although some discussion continues on whether that right is only to the sole designator or also to the individual SOs and ACs).
A significant number of participants have expressed the view that additional transparency issues need to be moved up considering that enforcement under the designator relies predominantly on removing directors.
Others disagree and say that it was agreed months ago that this should be WS2.
The response is that things have changed – the model was membership, it now is designator. That under this new model, it is even more important that individuals, businesses, and the SOs and ACs have access to information as a counterbalance and that if this had been known from the start that people would have insisted that transparency be WS1.
There seems to be no real issue with pursuing these matters on substance, just a concern about the timeline.
Steve offered one compromise. I offered another. Both are aimed at limiting the immediate work load to allow them to fit the timeline.
Brett
*From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett *Cc:* Burr, Becky; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg; accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs.
The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members.
It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership.
For the rest, it should be WS2....
cheers
Jordan
On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
------------------------------
*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
------------------------------ 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
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
*To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Agree, but our time constraints are significant
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Becky,
I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* 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 <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek < kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Agree. Alan -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On November 2, 2015 9:43:53 PM GMT+00:00, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
The only thing I would like to add at this point is to query the point about granting such rights to individual SOs and ACs.
The rights of a member, which we are analogising, would have given the inspection right to the community mechanism as sole member. The right would not have been able to be delegated to SOs and ACs in a legal sense. It was the abstraction of that right *away* from individual SOs and ACs, along with other statutory rights, which was part of the shift from multiple members to single members.
It is not clear to me why we should, in WS1, do anything other than replicate what the member right would have been - to grant it to the community as a whole, as would have been the case with membership.
For the rest, it should be WS2....
cheers Jordan
On 3 November 2015 at 10:24, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Hence, my suggestion to focus on more defined, easily implemented measures in WS1 that would address the concerns of those calling for more transparency measures in WS1, while leaving the more complicated matters to WS2 with a specific commitment to follow through.
------------------------------ 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
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 4:22 PM
*To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Agree, but our time constraints are significant
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 4:20 PM *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz>, Steve DelBianco < sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek <kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> *Subject: *RE: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Becky,
I am referring to the more recent discussion that arose form the move from membership to designator. Even so, there is no opposition expressed that I have seen to the pursuit of these goals in principle, just in terms of our time constraints.
Best,
Brett
------------------------------
*BrettSchaefer*
* 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
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__heritage.org_&d=CwMGaQ&c...>
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Monday, November 02, 2015 3:44 PM *To:* Schaefer, Brett; Steve DelBianco; kdrazek@verisign.com; Alan Greenberg *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
Review and enhancement of DIDP has been a WS2 item for months.
J. Beckwith Burr
Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
*From: *<Schaefer>, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> *Date: *Monday, November 2, 2015 at 1:06 PM *To: *Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org>, Keith Drazek < kdrazek@verisign.com>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> *Cc: *Accountability Community
<accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
*Subject: *Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
That said, in the general discussion, I haven’t seen any real opposition to the call for: (1) granting the right of inspection to the SD or to the individual SOs/ACs; (2) improving the DIDP process; and (3) requiring ICANN to disclose its contacts with government to influence policy and the expenditures for that purpose.
_______________________________________________ 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 *
Hello Brett,
Require SO/AC action to initiate a review team? So a DIDP request by an individual that is denied is final unless they can convince 2 SOs/ACs to propose setting up a Review Team?
With respect to an individual or company that has had a DIDP request denied – I think the right thing is to develop an appropriate appeals process that is tailored for DIDP. Presently the appeal for an individual member or company is to the Board’s reconsideration process – which is not ideal. I think some sort of process that involves the ombudsman (with the relevant inspection rights) might be a better solution. There is also a difference between a process (DIDP) that is intended for documents to be made public, and processes to obtain documents for use in a particular dispute (ie the equivalent of a legal discovery process) . I have seen DIDP information requests where the party is seeking private access to information that is not intended to be public (e.g private email communications between third parties etc). I see the inspection rights being discussed in the context of a member as relating to material that is in the general public interest as agreed by the SOs and ACs to be made public. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
I disagree with Alan and Greg that shifting transparency to WS1 is a mission creep. According to them, "right to inspection" is the only transparency power lost due to change in reference models which can easily be compensated by giving the designator inspection powers. This is wrong because change in reference model also changes the mode of enforcement from direct to indirect. Their argument fails to account for the fact that the enforcement model has now become indirect making information asymmetry a key "bottleneck" for enforcement. Our reliance on arbitration and community discussions will increase substantially wherein information is the key for an informed argument. If transparency is not included in WS1 then the ICANN staff and board will be able to frustrate both arbitration and community discussions endlessly if the community fails to get their hands on the right information at the right time - as a result making indirect enforcement impractical. This is not an attempt to neglect WS2. This is only an attempt to bring a parity between the designator and member models in WS1. Information asymmetry is an extremely big accountability concern, less so with a direct form of enforcement and more so with an indirect form of enforcement. Merely giving the right to inspection to the designator does not bring parity between the member and designator models. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model.
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.
Regards, Keith
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Excellent points. From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Guru Acharya Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 11:48 AM To: Drazek, Keith Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) I disagree with Alan and Greg that shifting transparency to WS1 is a mission creep. According to them, "right to inspection" is the only transparency power lost due to change in reference models which can easily be compensated by giving the designator inspection powers. This is wrong because change in reference model also changes the mode of enforcement from direct to indirect. Their argument fails to account for the fact that the enforcement model has now become indirect making information asymmetry a key "bottleneck" for enforcement. Our reliance on arbitration and community discussions will increase substantially wherein information is the key for an informed argument. If transparency is not included in WS1 then the ICANN staff and board will be able to frustrate both arbitration and community discussions endlessly if the community fails to get their hands on the right information at the right time - as a result making indirect enforcement impractical. This is not an attempt to neglect WS2. This is only an attempt to bring a parity between the designator and member models in WS1. Information asymmetry is an extremely big accountability concern, less so with a direct form of enforcement and more so with an indirect form of enforcement. Merely giving the right to inspection to the designator does not bring parity between the member and designator models. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com<mailto:kdrazek@verisign.com>> wrote: I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model. I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold. Regards, Keith On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote: Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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: http://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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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/> ________________________________ 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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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><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><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><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 _______________________________________________ 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
Still waiting for an answer. Who took the call to include transparency in ws1? On 30 Oct 2015 21:48, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Excellent points.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 11:48 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
I disagree with Alan and Greg that shifting transparency to WS1 is a mission creep. According to them, "right to inspection" is the only transparency power lost due to change in reference models which can easily be compensated by giving the designator inspection powers. This is wrong because change in reference model also changes the mode of enforcement from direct to indirect. Their argument fails to account for the fact that the enforcement model has now become indirect making information asymmetry a key "bottleneck" for enforcement. Our reliance on arbitration and community discussions will increase substantially wherein information is the key for an informed argument. If transparency is not included in WS1 then the ICANN staff and board will be able to frustrate both arbitration and community discussions endlessly if the community fails to get their hands on the right information at the right time - as a result making indirect enforcement impractical.
This is not an attempt to neglect WS2. This is only an attempt to bring a parity between the designator and member models in WS1. Information asymmetry is an extremely big accountability concern, less so with a direct form of enforcement and more so with an indirect form of enforcement. Merely giving the right to inspection to the designator does not bring parity between the member and designator models.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model.
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.
Regards,
Keith
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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
________________________________ 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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ 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
Ws2* my apologies. On 30 Oct 2015 22:08, "Padmini" <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com> wrote:
Still waiting for an answer. Who took the call to include transparency in ws1? On 30 Oct 2015 21:48, "Schaefer, Brett" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Excellent points.
*From:* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Guru Acharya *Sent:* Friday, October 30, 2015 11:48 AM *To:* Drazek, Keith *Cc:* accountability-cross-community@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
I disagree with Alan and Greg that shifting transparency to WS1 is a mission creep. According to them, "right to inspection" is the only transparency power lost due to change in reference models which can easily be compensated by giving the designator inspection powers. This is wrong because change in reference model also changes the mode of enforcement from direct to indirect. Their argument fails to account for the fact that the enforcement model has now become indirect making information asymmetry a key "bottleneck" for enforcement. Our reliance on arbitration and community discussions will increase substantially wherein information is the key for an informed argument. If transparency is not included in WS1 then the ICANN staff and board will be able to frustrate both arbitration and community discussions endlessly if the community fails to get their hands on the right information at the right time - as a result making indirect enforcement impractical.
This is not an attempt to neglect WS2. This is only an attempt to bring a parity between the designator and member models in WS1. Information asymmetry is an extremely big accountability concern, less so with a direct form of enforcement and more so with an indirect form of enforcement. Merely giving the right to inspection to the designator does not bring parity between the member and designator models.
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Drazek, Keith <kdrazek@verisign.com> wrote:
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model.
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.
Regards,
Keith
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain < ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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 | W: 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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
________________________________ 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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net< mailto:egmorris1@toast.net <egmorris1@toast.net>>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr< mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org< mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com< mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin < Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ 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, I agree with this. When the Dublin meeting went through all of the remedies that could be applied to an SD model to make it nearly as good as a SM model, this was the one case that was neglected and which we did not speak up on at the time. Hopefully that was the last chance to do so. The right of inspection is a cornerstone for transparency. As I mentioned before, had all of the ATRT recommendations on transparency actually be implemented, we would have a model of default transparency at the moment where everything was transparent unless specifically determined for restricted access; and that would be logged, with reason and time period. We don't have that now and will likely have to wait for WS2 to get to that level. That is if we ever see WS2 - the talk I hear of WS2 being cancelled, redefined or otherwise transformed because it is too hard to define sort of make it foolhardy to really believe in WS2 as the time to solve all unresolved problems. But never mind, I chose to believe we will have a real WS2. And I will continue to push for it. Membership gave us inspection. For SD to be nearly as effective as SM, we need a solution to include at least that. I will continue to live in hope that someday the ATRT recommendation on transparency will be taken seriously and implemented. In the meantime, inspection seems necessary. avri On 30-Oct-15 10:31, Drazek, Keith wrote:
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model.
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.
Regards, Keith
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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:http://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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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><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><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><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
_______________________________________________ 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
I also strongly urge the CCWG to consider transparency of Nomcom as a WS1 issue. We have placed a lot of reliance on board spill and replacement as the enforcement mechanism. Without transparency of Nomcom in WS1, there is no way to ascertain whether the replacement board selected by Nomcom (and ACs) would take the same decision as the spilled board - thus making indirect enforcement a frustrating process. Once the board is spilled, the Nomcom must be obliged to take community decisions as the benchmark for selecting new board members in the interview process. Transparency would oblige the Nomcom to do so by naming and shaming. On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 9:39 PM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
I agree with this. When the Dublin meeting went through all of the remedies that could be applied to an SD model to make it nearly as good as a SM model, this was the one case that was neglected and which we did not speak up on at the time. Hopefully that was the last chance to do so.
The right of inspection is a cornerstone for transparency. As I mentioned before, had all of the ATRT recommendations on transparency actually be implemented, we would have a model of default transparency at the moment where everything was transparent unless specifically determined for restricted access; and that would be logged, with reason and time period. We don't have that now and will likely have to wait for WS2 to get to that level. That is if we ever see WS2 - the talk I hear of WS2 being cancelled, redefined or otherwise transformed because it is too hard to define sort of make it foolhardy to really believe in WS2 as the time to solve all unresolved problems. But never mind, I chose to believe we will have a real WS2. And I will continue to push for it.
Membership gave us inspection. For SD to be nearly as effective as SM, we need a solution to include at least that.
I will continue to live in hope that someday the ATRT recommendation on transparency will be taken seriously and implemented. In the meantime, inspection seems necessary.
avri
On 30-Oct-15 10:31, Drazek, Keith wrote:
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model.
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.
Regards, Keith
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>> wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote:
I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus.
I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
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:http://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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator.
The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute.
Thanks,
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 http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/>
On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu,
Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question.
Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records.
- In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco)
- There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion.
Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.”
In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient.
I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take.
Best, Mathieu
For your reference : Full transcript -->
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%...
Slide-deck -->
https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...
page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation.
A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information.
The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access.
The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign.
The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:
accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:
accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG
I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available".
The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious.
I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation.
And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application.
If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents
anyway.
That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:
Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>>
wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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><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><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><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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Keith, I did not say I did not support such access to information. I support it STRONGLY. WS1 was to put powers in place to get other things we need ad WS2 was designed to take advantage of that. If we can get something in WS1, great. I have publicly supported a number of immediate openness on a number of things including (but not limited to) board meetings. What I was objecting to was the theory that because membership gave us a particular feature, it automatically had to be included in WS1 now. Adding too much to WS1 at this point could kill out already very tight timeline. Alan At 30/10/2015 10:31 AM, Drazek, Keith wrote:
I disagree with Alan. It is not mission creep. If the community is to rely on removal/recall of the Board to enforce powers, the community needs reasonable and predictable visibility into the organization's deliberations and decision-making. This is part of the evolution of our reference model.
I agree with Chris that the right of inspection should be conferred at the SO/AC level, subject to a reasonable consensus threshold.
Regards, Keith
On Oct 30, 2015, at 10:19 AM, Alan Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.
On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any rights other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>ceo@auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/>http://www.auda.org.au
auDA Australias 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> wrote:
Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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 <http://heritage.org>http://heritage.org<http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote:
Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin.
- Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Icans accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying So thats one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required. In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the groups input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%20ACCT%20Working%20Session%202_21%20October.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2
Slide-deck --> <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2>https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountability%20Working%20Session%20II%20%281%29-1.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2 page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANNs justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANNs designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams.
De : <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again.
But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems.
Kieren
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India
Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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
<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 <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
You mean just like you agreed with the identified consensus on a Membership model. So, to follow the ALAC example, there's no reason why, even if was the case that it was a WS2 (which I doubt), it has to remain so. On 30/10/15 14:17, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue.
In Dublin, the CCWG-A pivoted from the sole member to the sole designator model, certainly not an insignificant development. As your comment suggests, transparency was essentially perceived as a ‘given’ under the consensus recommendation, i.e., the sole member model, but with the pivot, a lot has changed, including the need to remedy the sole designator’s lack of effective transparency tools. This need was discussed numerous times both in sessions and via the list. While not ‘de facto’ a WS1 issue while the sole member model was in the fore, it is now viewed by a substantial number of stakeholders as necessary – even critical – under WS1 in order to garner sufficient support for shift to sole designator model. So, transparency via the model is now transparency via the process. That is not ‘mission creep’ but, rather, a means to sustain an essential component of accountability. Which is, after all, the principle point of this exercise, no? Ken From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:18 AM To: Chris Disspain; Schaefer, Brett Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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><http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto: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
+1 To add transparency now as an independent issue is to acknowledge that we have changed the reference model. “He who says A must say B.” Paul Paul Rosenzweig <mailto:paul.rosenzweigesq@redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article...> Link to my PGP Key From: Salaets, Ken [mailto:ksalaets@itic.org] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:50 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>; Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) In Dublin, the CCWG-A pivoted from the sole member to the sole designator model, certainly not an insignificant development. As your comment suggests, transparency was essentially perceived as a ‘given’ under the consensus recommendation, i.e., the sole member model, but with the pivot, a lot has changed, including the need to remedy the sole designator’s lack of effective transparency tools. This need was discussed numerous times both in sessions and via the list. While not ‘de facto’ a WS1 issue while the sole member model was in the fore, it is now viewed by a substantial number of stakeholders as necessary – even critical – under WS1 in order to garner sufficient support for shift to sole designator model. So, transparency via the model is now transparency via the process. That is not ‘mission creep’ but, rather, a means to sustain an essential component of accountability. Which is, after all, the principle point of this exercise, no? Ken From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:18 AM To: Chris Disspain; Schaefer, Brett Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> > wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo@auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/> 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org <mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org> > wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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> <http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net> <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> <mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%...> &modificationDate=1445525810000&api=v2 Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit...> &modificationDate=1445444965000&api=v2 page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com <mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com> <mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> <mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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> <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%3cmailto: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%3cmailto: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%3cmailto: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
Yes it was clearly put to us in the room that shifting to designator also came with work on transparency as a requirement, if that is no longer the case and we are going to have to fight for this issue which was given to us as an item that would be worked on, then I think many of us will no longer support designator. -James From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com<mailto:paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>> Date: Friday 30 October 2015 at 3:50 p.m. To: "'Salaets, Ken'" <ksalaets@itic.org<mailto:ksalaets@itic.org>>, 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>, 'Chris Disspain' <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>, "'Schaefer, Brett'" <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) +1 To add transparency now as an independent issue is to acknowledge that we have changed the reference model. “He who says A must say B.” Paul 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: Salaets, Ken [mailto:ksalaets@itic.org] Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:50 AM To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>>; Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>>; Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) In Dublin, the CCWG-A pivoted from the sole member to the sole designator model, certainly not an insignificant development. As your comment suggests, transparency was essentially perceived as a ‘given’ under the consensus recommendation, i.e., the sole member model, but with the pivot, a lot has changed, including the need to remedy the sole designator’s lack of effective transparency tools. This need was discussed numerous times both in sessions and via the list. While not ‘de facto’ a WS1 issue while the sole member model was in the fore, it is now viewed by a substantial number of stakeholders as necessary – even critical – under WS1 in order to garner sufficient support for shift to sole designator model. So, transparency via the model is now transparency via the process. That is not ‘mission creep’ but, rather, a means to sustain an essential component of accountability. Which is, after all, the principle point of this exercise, no? Ken From:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Friday, October 30, 2015 10:18 AM To: Chris Disspain; Schaefer, Brett Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Transparency is needed, but the CCWG identified this as a WS2 issue. Yes, when we were talking about membership, some of this automatically would be provided, but it was not de facto a WS1 issue. To add it now is mission creap. -- Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. On October 30, 2015 11:34:29 AM GMT+00:00, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au<mailto:ceo@auda.org.au>> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ‘rights’ other than the enforcement rights already agreed being given to the designator. I have no issue with the right of inspection being given to the SOs and ACs pursuant to an agreed level of consensus. 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 22:25 , Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>> wrote: Matthieu, I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. The discussion recently has focused on how much of the other transparency provisions to bring forward to WS1. I and others think a substantial amount, others disagree. If a compromise or centrist position is being sought, I suggest it that it focus on these items of dispute. Thanks, 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><http://heritage.org/> On Oct 30, 2015, at 5:24 AM, Edward Morris <egmorris1@toast.net<mailto:egmorris1@toast.net><mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> wrote: Mathieu, Thank you very much for this post. I want to succinctly thank the Chairs for their exemplary leadership on this issue, express my support for their rational, considered, centered and measur ed approach to transparency and inspection issues, and express my full support for the approach indicated, with work beyond the transposing of certain provisions from the old reference model into into the new reference model to be tackled in work stream 2. It is an approach between the two extremes recently debated on list and as a centrist in most things in life find it a reasonable way forward that should provide us with the best opportunity to get this done right. Thanks again. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone On Oct 30, 2015, at 8:15 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr<mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr><mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr>> wrote: Dear Colleagues, First of all many thanks to all of you wh o have been working hard on this issue. We are well aware of your efforts to find an approach that would be acceptable to all on this question. Regarding transparency discussions, I would like to remind everyone of the content and conclusions of our discussions on Transparency in the Sole Designator model while we were in Dublin. - Our lawyers have confirmed that the same level of transparency could be achieved in the Sole Designator model as with the Sole Member, by adding a specific provision to the Bylaws enabling the Sole Designator to inspect Ican’s accounting books and records. - In response to a concern raised by Sam Eisner about public disclosure of such documents, we discussed how we could use the same type of provision that we had agreed on for the AoC reviews as a safeguard (see below the relevant extract from the AoC section, provided by Steve del Bianco) - There was a debate about whether or not extra provisions for transparency were needed in Work stream 1, considering that we have agreement that the topic is on the WS2 agenda. There was no formal conclusion. Thomas did conclude by saying “So that’s one action item for our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and extent to which a transparency is required.” In terms of way forward, given the input we have received, I believe the question is whether transparency provisions, beyond the records inspection rights, fit with our agreed definition of Work stream 1, and whether the level of consensus on the extra provisions at this stage is sufficient. I would note that, with the group’s input, our WS2 initiative would already be well advanced. It might be possible to launch it very soon after we have submitted our WS1 recommendations if that is the path we take. Best, Mathieu For your reference : Full transcript --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/Transcript%20CCWG%... Slide-deck --> https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56143884/CCWG-Accountabilit... page 75 of AoC reviews as part of WS1. Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN's deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents. If ICANN refuses to reveal documents or information requested by the Review Team, ICANN must provide a justification to the Review Team. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s justification, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. For documents and information that ICANN does disclose to the Review Team, ICANN may designate certain documents and information as not for disclosur e by the Review Team, either in its report or otherwise. If the Review Team is not satisfied with ICANN’s designation of non-disclosable documents or information, it can appeal to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the non-disclosure designation. A confidential disclosure framework shall be published by ICANN. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which documents and information are classified, including a description of the levels of classification that documents or information may be subject to, and the classes of persons who may access such documents and information. The confidential disclosure framework shall describe the process by which a Review Team may request access to documents and information that are designated as classified or restricted access. The confidential disclosure framework shall also describe the provisions of any non-discl osure agreement that members of a Review Team may be asked to sign. The confidential disclosure framework must provide a mechanism to escalate and/or appeal the refusal to release documents and information to duly recognized Review Teams. De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Kieren McCarthy Envoyé : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 À : Padmini Cc : accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org><mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Objet : Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG I have to agree with Padmini on this one re: DIDP and being "able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available". The information provided is often tangential to what has actually been asked for. In quite a few cases it is so far removed from the query that it is almost obnoxious. I don't know why Board members have such a blind spot about how the staff behaves to those outside the corporation. And I'm still waiting to hear a Board member - any Board member - announce that they have decided to look into the staff's bylaw-breaking behavior in the .africa application. If I was on the Board and I heard that th e entire process was being jeopardized by staff wrongly interfering in the process (and then lying about doing so), I'd make sure the community knew I was doing my job and insist on some kind of internal review of what happened and what could be done to make sure it didn't happen again. But instead we get silence and fantasy responses like these ones from Bruce about how the DIDP works and the effectiveness of ICANN's financial reporting systems. Kieren On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 5:41 AM, Padmini <pdmnbaruah@gmail.com<mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com><mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com>> wrote: Dear Bruce, As someone who has spent some time combing through the different responses that ICANN files to the various DIDP requests, my findings are slightly different, and have been posted earlier. While ICANN does link one to an innumerable array of documents that are publicly available, many times, there is little or no connection between the information one seeks and the publicly available documents that are provided. For instance, I have asked a few questions on registrar/registry audits, specifically seeking individual contracted party audit reports in cases where there have been breaches or discrepancies. However, the response contains a large number of links explaining ICANN's three-year-audit process in great detail, and at the end has a rejection of my actual request on the basis of certain of their extremely vast and broad grounds for non-disclosure. I like to refer to this as ICANN's tendency towards documentary obfuscation where they aren't actually giving you the information that you need, but are drowning you in documents anyway. That 66 is a figure that we might need to scrutinise closer in terms of how effective those disclosures actually have been. Warm Regards Padmini Programme Associate, Internet Governance Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, India Padmini Baruah V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) NLSIU, Bangalore On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 12:16 PM, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au><mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: 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 dem and 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 ex ternal 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><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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto: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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org%3cmailto: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
Brett is correct. el On 2015-10-30 12:25 , Schaefer, Brett wrote:
Matthieu,
I may be wrong, but based on the comments on the list and in Dublin that there is broad agreement, I would even say consensus, that the right to inspect needs to be granted to the designator. [...]
Brett [...]
participants (22)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Arun Mohan Sukumar -
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Guru Acharya -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Mathieu Weill -
Nigel Roberts -
Padmini -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Robin Gross -
Salaets, Ken -
Schaefer, Brett -
Seun Ojedeji -
Steve DelBianco