Agenda for Paris
Dear Chairs, I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements. I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements. I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability. I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!). I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning. [1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr Kind Regards, Malcolm Hutty. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hi, While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions. avri On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision. As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted. I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant. In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness". I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process. Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/ Kieren On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions.
avri
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kieren, That is a fascinating and troubling revelation. It tends to call into question all sorts of issues relating to confidentiality, DIDP, etc., as exercised by ICANN, Inc. Greg On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren@kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness".
I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process.
Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
Kieren
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions.
avri
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org 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
Just read your story, Kieren. Excellent work – and very troubling in its revelations. Certainly has implications for the final accountability package. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell Twitter: @VlawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:14 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision. As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted. I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant. In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness". I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process. Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/ Kieren On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi, While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions. avri On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Hi, The problem with staff redaction and transparency is one that continues to plague ICANN. And is something that makes trust harder. Several reviews, including the ATRT1 & 2 have tried to do something about this. And while there is some more transparency regarding the Board, we are not making much headway with the Staff. Or perhaps it is the Board that has not been able, or allowed, to translate recommendations of transparency into instructions to the staff. One thing that we hoped would help in the quest was the annual reporting on metrics for transparency. /of course we have not seen this yet. One of the factors that needs to be considered is the amount of redaction in documents ICANN releases. But really the ATRT2 pushed for a notion of default transparency with few predetermined classes for redaction, with public logging required for any thing redacted. We were not, however, explicit in exactly what this meant for staff. I hope the ATRT of 2016 manages to be explicit in giving recommended directions for transparency. I think lack of staff transparency has become one of ICANN's greater liabilities. I wonder whether ICANN or "ICANNleaks" will publish the un-redacted report first? avri On 15-Jul-15 14:13, Phil Corwin wrote:
Just read your story, Kieren.
Excellent work – and very troubling in its revelations.
Certainly has implications for the final accountability package.
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell***
* *
*Twitter: @VlawDC*
*/"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/*
*From:*accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Kieren McCarthy *Sent:* Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:14 PM *To:* Accountability Cross Community *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness".
I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process.
Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
Kieren
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org <mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote:
Hi,
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions.
avri
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Phil I know this was 15 years ago, but ICANN's role in redelegating a certain ccTLD without legal authority was exactly the same behaviour. So how can we draft accountability mechanisms in 3 motnhs when we've failed for 15 years to do so. On 07/15/2015 07:13 PM, Phil Corwin wrote:
Just read your story, Kieren.
Excellent work – and very troubling in its revelations.
Certainly has implications for the final accountability package.
Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/cell
Twitter: @VlawDC
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kieren McCarthy Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:14 PM To: Accountability Cross Community Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness".
I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process.
Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
Kieren
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org<mailto:avri@acm.org>> wrote: Hi,
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions.
avri
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2015.0.5961 / Virus Database: 4365/10125 - Release Date: 06/29/15 Internal Virus Database is out of date.
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 2015-07-15 18:14, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
I've generally supported Jonathan's view that we should concentrate on improving ICANN's accountability for its own sake, and not unnecessarily rake over old coals. However reading the .Africa ruling, I must say I was troubled. Some of the panel's findings seriously call into question the belief advanced by some of the "voluntarists" here that legally enforceability of accountability measures is unnecessary as ICANN can be trusted to honour our accountability proposals always in good faith. Kieren writes in his article:
"The report contains no less than 39 redactions, many pulling out entire paragraphs of text. The Register has seen a non-redacted version of the report, and we can say that most of those redactions concern the fact that ICANN's head of operations, Dai-Trang Nguyen, drafted a letter that was then used by ICANN to advance a competing .africa bid.
That's a serious allegation. Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain i) is this true? ii) if it is true, why did ICANN consider it appropriate to redact such information from the report of the IRP panel? In the meantime, I would note that this raises yet another issue with the IRP we have not yet considered, namely should we provide explicitly that the IRP is to publish its findings itself, and should it publish in full, entirely at its own discretion, or should we establish principles for the limits of transparency? Again (I believe) we have failed to consider this because we have concentrated excessively on the community measures to the exclusion of IRP issues. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Malcolm, thanks for raising the transparency issue. This is very important, and I agree that we should definitely focus on IRP more. Moreover, do we have time limits for IRP decisions? I don't know the details of the case, but if it took them two years to issue an outcome, then can we really claim that they are efficient or they can be more efficient than court? Best Farzaneh On 15 July 2015 at 17:25, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 2015-07-15 18:14, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
I've generally supported Jonathan's view that we should concentrate on improving ICANN's accountability for its own sake, and not unnecessarily rake over old coals.
However reading the .Africa ruling, I must say I was troubled. Some of the panel's findings seriously call into question the belief advanced by some of the "voluntarists" here that legally enforceability of accountability measures is unnecessary as ICANN can be trusted to honour our accountability proposals always in good faith.
Kieren writes in his article:
"The report contains no less than 39 redactions, many pulling out entire
paragraphs of text. The Register has seen a non-redacted version of the report, and we can say that most of those redactions concern the fact that ICANN's head of operations, Dai-Trang Nguyen, drafted a letter that was then used by ICANN to advance a competing .africa bid.
That's a serious allegation. Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
i) is this true? ii) if it is true, why did ICANN consider it appropriate to redact such information from the report of the IRP panel?
In the meantime, I would note that this raises yet another issue with the IRP we have not yet considered, namely should we provide explicitly that the IRP is to publish its findings itself, and should it publish in full, entirely at its own discretion, or should we establish principles for the limits of transparency?
Again (I believe) we have failed to consider this because we have concentrated excessively on the community measures to the exclusion of IRP issues.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
Good observation Farzaneh, Justice delayed is justice denied. There are a lot off inefficiencies in the current IRP process that need to be resolved as soon as possible if the community is to have faith in the process. Regards On 7/16/15, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii@gmail.com> wrote:
Malcolm, thanks for raising the transparency issue. This is very important, and I agree that we should definitely focus on IRP more.
Moreover, do we have time limits for IRP decisions? I don't know the details of the case, but if it took them two years to issue an outcome, then can we really claim that they are efficient or they can be more efficient than court?
Best
Farzaneh
On 15 July 2015 at 17:25, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 2015-07-15 18:14, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
I've generally supported Jonathan's view that we should concentrate on improving ICANN's accountability for its own sake, and not unnecessarily rake over old coals.
However reading the .Africa ruling, I must say I was troubled. Some of the panel's findings seriously call into question the belief advanced by some of the "voluntarists" here that legally enforceability of accountability measures is unnecessary as ICANN can be trusted to honour our accountability proposals always in good faith.
Kieren writes in his article:
"The report contains no less than 39 redactions, many pulling out entire
paragraphs of text. The Register has seen a non-redacted version of the report, and we can say that most of those redactions concern the fact that ICANN's head of operations, Dai-Trang Nguyen, drafted a letter that was then used by ICANN to advance a competing .africa bid.
That's a serious allegation. Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
i) is this true? ii) if it is true, why did ICANN consider it appropriate to redact such information from the report of the IRP panel?
In the meantime, I would note that this raises yet another issue with the IRP we have not yet considered, namely should we provide explicitly that the IRP is to publish its findings itself, and should it publish in full, entirely at its own discretion, or should we establish principles for the limits of transparency?
Again (I believe) we have failed to consider this because we have concentrated excessively on the community measures to the exclusion of IRP issues.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- Farzaneh
-- Barrack O. Otieno +254721325277 +254-20-2498789 Skype: barrack.otieno http://www.otienobarrack.me.ke/
Hi, While i am also amazed at some of the revelations, the question that comes to mind is "when the servant executes the wish of the master, who is to be knocked on the head? on the other hand, when the servant goes on doing what the master did not send him/her who is to be knocked on the head? I think either of the case, the rouge staff should be brought to justice which will include the CEO more (incase of the former). Overall the board would be in the best position to carry out the legitimate will of the community on staff. I am still of strong opinion that community should not be in the accountability path of staff but rather the community should mandate the board to do its job of keeping staff accountable on their roles and responsibilities. Regards On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 2015-07-15 18:14, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
I've generally supported Jonathan's view that we should concentrate on improving ICANN's accountability for its own sake, and not unnecessarily rake over old coals.
However reading the .Africa ruling, I must say I was troubled. Some of the panel's findings seriously call into question the belief advanced by some of the "voluntarists" here that legally enforceability of accountability measures is unnecessary as ICANN can be trusted to honour our accountability proposals always in good faith.
Kieren writes in his article:
"The report contains no less than 39 redactions, many pulling out entire
paragraphs of text. The Register has seen a non-redacted version of the report, and we can say that most of those redactions concern the fact that ICANN's head of operations, Dai-Trang Nguyen, drafted a letter that was then used by ICANN to advance a competing .africa bid.
That's a serious allegation. Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
i) is this true? ii) if it is true, why did ICANN consider it appropriate to redact such information from the report of the IRP panel?
In the meantime, I would note that this raises yet another issue with the IRP we have not yet considered, namely should we provide explicitly that the IRP is to publish its findings itself, and should it publish in full, entirely at its own discretion, or should we establish principles for the limits of transparency?
Again (I believe) we have failed to consider this because we have concentrated excessively on the community measures to the exclusion of IRP issues.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions. I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here. Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Good and I am particularly glad to read this response from a board member. Regards Sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Jul 2015 2:22 pm, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I´m rather thrilled waiting for the redaction staff´s response.... Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 (New Phone number!!!!) ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Good and I am particularly glad to read this response from a board member.
Regards
Sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 16 Jul 2015 2:22 pm, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
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
Thank you Bruce. I also assumed I was reading a version redacted by the panel itself. For clarity I would like to know if staff only redacted the ICANN sections/quotes, or if they also redacted sections/quotes of DCA statements. Best regards Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 16 Jul 2015, at 7:22, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 16 Jul 2015, at 14:22, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
Bruce, Thank you for replying, and I am gladdened that you are alive to the interest in this. I look forward to seeing the staff explanation. Here are two more paragraphs I just wrote as my instinctive reaction: "Assuming Kieren's allegations about the nature of the redacted material are correct, we must conclude that they acted to conceal direct criticism by the panel of identifiable individuals - both in their identity and the details of the actions criticised. Since you confirm that this was not in pursuit of a direct, individualised instruction to the staff from the Board, I look forward to reading in their explanation why they thought this concealment was appropriate and more generally authorised, and later asking Board members whether they accept that explanation. " Then, before hitting 'Send', I wondered whether I was not guilty in saying that of trying to insert this community into the executive chain of command, in just the way some here have warned against in the staff accountability thread, myself amongst them? Is it proper for me to be demanding that the staff account for their actions in this manner, or am I intruding on the purview of the Board? If I am, I fear my proper course would be to reject your deflection to the staff and instead request that the Board either defend (if any defence is possible) or else apologise for and correct the behaviour of the Corporation, without seeking to separate themselves from its actions for which they are ultimately responsible. Food for thought, as we consider the 'staff accountability' thread. I know this is uncomfortable, so let me close by thanking you again personally for your response. It does not pass unnoticed that you are personally willing to engage even when all might not seem well, which is not always visible from every Board member's interaction with this group. Malcolm.
I have no hesitation at all in stating that allowing the staff who are subject to IRP identification to redact the document released for public consumption is an inherent conflict of interest. Redaction is of course sometimes necessary and appropriate. But it is a form of censorship at odds with a commitment to transparency, and therefore the rules about when it can be done and by whom are quite important. Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal Virtualaw LLC 1155 F Street, NW Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20004 202-559-8597/Direct 202-559-8750/Fax 202-255-6172/Cell Twitter: @VLawDC "Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey Sent from my iPad
On Jul 16, 2015, at 10:52 AM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 16 Jul 2015, at 14:22, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
Bruce,
Thank you for replying, and I am gladdened that you are alive to the interest in this.
I look forward to seeing the staff explanation.
Here are two more paragraphs I just wrote as my instinctive reaction:
"Assuming Kieren's allegations about the nature of the redacted material are correct, we must conclude that they acted to conceal direct criticism by the panel of identifiable individuals - both in their identity and the details of the actions criticised.
Since you confirm that this was not in pursuit of a direct, individualised instruction to the staff from the Board, I look forward to reading in their explanation why they thought this concealment was appropriate and more generally authorised, and later asking Board members whether they accept that explanation. "
Then, before hitting 'Send', I wondered whether I was not guilty in saying that of trying to insert this community into the executive chain of command, in just the way some here have warned against in the staff accountability thread, myself amongst them? Is it proper for me to be demanding that the staff account for their actions in this manner, or am I intruding on the purview of the Board? If I am, I fear my proper course would be to reject your deflection to the staff and instead request that the Board either defend (if any defence is possible) or else apologise for and correct the behaviour of the Corporation, without seeking to separate themselves from its actions for which they are ultimately responsible.
Food for thought, as we consider the 'staff accountability' thread.
I know this is uncomfortable, so let me close by thanking you again personally for your response. It does not pass unnoticed that you are personally willing to engage even when all might not seem well, which is not always visible from every Board member's interaction with this group.
Malcolm. _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Dear CCWG, As noted by Bruce, here is a discussion of the redaction process for the IRP declaration. Best, Sam The Bylaws governing the Independent Review Process allow for the IRP Panel to agree that certain information can be held as confidential. (Bylaws, Art. IV, Section 3.20.) As is a normal part of ICANN’s Independent Review Process (IRP), ICANN and DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA) entered into a confidentiality agreement during the IRP. The IRP Panel approved and agreed to that confidentiality agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties exchanged information that was to be maintained as confidential for purposes of the IRP. The IRP Panel’s order confirming that agreement states: Documents exchanged by the Parties may not be used for any purpose other than participating in the IRP; (2) documents exchanged by the Parties may not be publicly posted or disclosed in any manner; (3) reference to such documents or information from such documents in the Parties’ written submissions must be redacted prior to public posting. The above agreement, however, does not in any way hinder the Panel’s ability in this IRP to refer to or cite any document and information it finds relevant and/or necessary for its determinations and declarations. The Parties themselves will ensure that any confidential information or document referred to or cited by the Panel in its determinations and declarations are appropriately redacted where necessary. (Procedural Order No. 4, Paragraph 2, at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/procedural-order-4-25sep14-en.pd....) ICANN is complying with the terms of that confidentiality agreement. In addition, because our transparency obligations dictated that we post the Declaration as quickly as possible (which we did the next day following receipt), all non-public information provided by either party under the confidentiality agreement was initially redacted by ICANN’s Counsel so that ICANN could publish it. ICANN’s counsel immediately began diligently reviewing all ICANN materials exchanged in the proceeding to ensure that we publicly share as much information as we can quickly as possible. ICANN will post a revised Declaration and transcript reflecting the removed redactions. We have requested that information previously marked as confidential from DCA and other parties who are impacted be released publicly to complete the public record. Those parties impacted are not obligated to make those documents public. At the conclusion of that process, ICANN will again publish a further revised Declaration and transcript. Information contained in the materials produced in the IRP that is currently redacted include some of each of the following types of documents: 1) confidential internal GAC emails and information, 2) DCA’s documents, 3) ICANN confidential correspondence with third parties (including other applicants), and 4) ICANN internal correspondence. As has been the case throughout the New gTLD Program, correspondence or documentation regarding application specific information has been typically treated as confidential. This includes all letters of support or non-objection submitted with applications or in response to clarifying questions from the GNP to the applicants. Accordingly, all such information relating to ZACR’s application for .AFRICA was appropriately identified and subject to confidentiality in the IRP, and therefore initially redacted in the final IRP Declaration. As noted above, we are evaluating the confidential treatment of this information in this matter, and may release some, or all, such information currently redacted. On 7/16/15, 3:22 PM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bruce Tonkin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au<mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>> wrote: Hello Malcolm, Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions. I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here. 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
If the below were indeed the case, a short disclaimer with something like: "Some portions have been redacted in order to be able to post the report immediately. The redactions are being reviewed with a view to their removal" would have been helpful. But it's just disingenuous. As usual. I am VERY sure that the DCA did not request ICANN staff made this clumsy attempt at hiding their misconduct. el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On Jul 16, 2015, at 20:21, Samantha Eisner <Samantha.Eisner@icann.org> wrote:
Dear CCWG,
As noted by Bruce, here is a discussion of the redaction process for the IRP declaration.
Best,
Sam
The Bylaws governing the Independent Review Process allow for the IRP Panel to agree that certain information can be held as confidential. (Bylaws, Art. IV, Section 3.20.) As is a normal part of ICANN’s Independent Review Process (IRP), ICANN and DotConnectAfrica Trust (DCA) entered into a confidentiality agreement during the IRP. The IRP Panel approved and agreed to that confidentiality agreement. Pursuant to the agreement, the parties exchanged information that was to be maintained as confidential for purposes of the IRP. The IRP Panel’s order confirming that agreement states:
Documents exchanged by the Parties may not be used for any purpose other than participating in the IRP; (2) documents exchanged by the Parties may not be publicly posted or disclosed in any manner; (3) reference to such documents or information from such documents in the Parties’ written submissions must be redacted prior to public posting.
The above agreement, however, does not in any way hinder the Panel’s ability in this IRP to refer to or cite any document and information it finds relevant and/or necessary for its determinations and declarations. The Parties themselves will ensure that any confidential information or document referred to or cited by the Panel in its determinations and declarations are appropriately redacted where necessary.
(Procedural Order No. 4, Paragraph 2, at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/procedural-order-4-25sep14-en.pd....)
ICANN is complying with the terms of that confidentiality agreement. In addition, because our transparency obligations dictated that we post the Declaration as quickly as possible (which we did the next day following receipt), all non-public information provided by either party under the confidentiality agreement was initially redacted by ICANN’s Counsel so that ICANN could publish it.
ICANN’s counsel immediately began diligently reviewing all ICANN materials exchanged in the proceeding to ensure that we publicly share as much information as we can quickly as possible. ICANN will post a revised Declaration and transcript reflecting the removed redactions. We have requested that information previously marked as confidential from DCA and other parties who are impacted be released publicly to complete the public record. Those parties impacted are not obligated to make those documents public. At the conclusion of that process, ICANN will again publish a further revised Declaration and transcript.
Information contained in the materials produced in the IRP that is currently redacted include some of each of the following types of documents: 1) confidential internal GAC emails and information, 2) DCA’s documents, 3) ICANN confidential correspondence with third parties (including other applicants), and 4) ICANN internal correspondence.
As has been the case throughout the New gTLD Program, correspondence or documentation regarding application specific information has been typically treated as confidential. This includes all letters of support or non-objection submitted with applications or in response to clarifying questions from the GNP to the applicants. Accordingly, all such information relating to ZACR’s application for .AFRICA was appropriately identified and subject to confidentiality in the IRP, and therefore initially redacted in the final IRP Declaration.
As noted above, we are evaluating the confidential treatment of this information in this matter, and may release some, or all, such information currently redacted.
On 7/16/15, 3:22 PM, "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Bruce Tonkin" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Since we have Board members on this list, perhaps they could explain
Well I have only seen the redacted version. I had assumed that the panel had redacted information that was provided to them under confidentiality provisions.
I Have since learnt it was redacted as part of the staff process for posting. I am expecting the staff to provide a public explanation shortly as to the process that is being followed here.
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
<default.xml> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Kieren, reading the report published in the ICANN website I had the feeling only the panel could have redacted the final document. Is ii true any party can redact put whatever they want to redact out of it? Who redacted the DCA sections? also ICANN staff? Thank you Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype: carlos.raulg On 15 Jul 2015, at 11:14, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa decision.
As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent" report were redacted.
I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.
In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with integrity and fairness".
I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week, in the middle of this accountability process.
Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/
Kieren
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we need to give more time to IRP. Not only is it a critical part of the puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals against an ACSO's [non]actions.
avri
On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Malcolm talk more at the welcome cocktail if your there, but basically we have added an additional session on IRP on Sat (you will all get an update soon) and in the first session we would like to have 5 mins focus on ST 23 analysis 3mins say on the diagram you highlighted and about 2 for QandA On 15/07/2015 11:22 am, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
Dear Chairs,
I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in particular IRP improvements.
I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for cross-check with CWG requirements.
I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on direct accountability.
I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look at the diagram!).
I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
[1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
Kind Regards,
Malcolm Hutty.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
London Internet Exchange Ltd 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (14)
-
Avri Doria -
Barrack Otieno -
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
farzaneh badii -
Greg Shatan -
Kieren McCarthy -
Malcolm Hutty -
Nigel Roberts -
Phil Corwin -
Samantha Eisner -
Seun Ojedeji