October 2015 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
by parminder Oct. 31, 2015

Oct. 31, 2015

After opposing greater accountability of ICANN through a membership based model, ALAC leadership seems also eager to *not* support increased transparency.... (Now, please dont cite technical reasons, people normally employ 'technical reasons' and 'facts' in pursuance of what they want accomplished and not against it) And ALAC is supposed to be the representative of the 'outsiders'.....A really strange world, i'd say! parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:44 +0000 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> To: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> CC: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> 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(a)auda.org.au> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ârightsâ 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(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA â Australiaâs 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(a)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(a)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(a)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 Icanâs 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 âSo thatâs one action item for > our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and > extent to which a transparency is required.â > > 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 groupâs 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-Accountabili… > > 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 > ICANNâs 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 ICANNâs > 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(a)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 > EnvoyÃ© : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 > Ã : Padmini > Cc : accountability-cross-community(a)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(a)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(a)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 â but even then we could at least note the items > discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information. > > With regard to financialsâ 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) â 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) â 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

4 7

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
by gbruen＠knujon.com Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

More money, more problems ------Original Message------ From: Karl Auerbach To: gbruen(a)knujon.com To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Sent: Oct 30, 2015 17:29 On 10/30/2015 02:05 PM, gbruen(a)knujon.com wrote: > And the financial obfuscation continues. Previous versions of the > budget associated line item amounts with managers. This information > has been removed from the current budget. By-the-way when I dug through the ledgers I found nothing in them that would be embarrassing to anyone. There were flaws and errors - but merely of the kind typical to any small, new business. There were some odd things - for example even through one of the excuses that was given was that ICANN had an expert go over the books and assure them that things were OK, it turned out that when we started to dig we noticed that an entire ledger was missing. That so-called "expert" kinda missed that rather major error. (When printed out the missing ledger alone was a stack of paper perhaps 80cm high.) It was an innocent mistake, and ICANN scurried about and found the missing materials, but it did reflect a rather troublesome level of credulity on the part of the members of the board of directors. You may find it interesting to read the public version of my final report to ICANN's board of directors: http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/icann-evaluation-public-version… (I just re-skimmed that note; it is amusing that at that time I expressed a concern that ICANN's employee roster was approaching 30 people and that the budget could reach $10million. Today those numbers have not only been exceeded, but exceeded by a full order of decimal magnitude. --karl-- Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

1 0

Fwd: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG)
by parminder Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

After opposing greater accountability of ICANN through a membership based model, ALAC leadership seems also eager to *not* support increased transparency.... (Now, please dont cite technical reasons, people normally employ 'technical reasons' and 'facts' in pursuance of what they want accomplished and not against it) And ALAC is supposed to be the representative of the 'outsiders'.....A really strange world, i'd say! parminder -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Transparency recap (Was: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG) Date: Fri, 30 Oct 2015 14:17:44 +0000 From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> To: Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, Schaefer, Brett <Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> CC: accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org> 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(a)auda.org.au> wrote: I disagree. I do not believe there is yet consensus. I am not in favour of any ârightsâ 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(a)auda.org.au <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> | W:www.auda.org.au <http://www.auda.org.au/> auDA â Australiaâs 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(a)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(a)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(a)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 Icanâs 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 âSo thatâs one action item for > our group to set up a subteam to define the exact language and > extent to which a transparency is required.â > > 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 groupâs 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-Accountabili… > > 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 > ICANNâs 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 ICANNâs > 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(a)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 > EnvoyÃ© : jeudi 29 octobre 2015 15:58 > Ã : Padmini > Cc : accountability-cross-community(a)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(a)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(a)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 â but even then we could at least note the items > discussed without necessarily disclosing some personal information. > > With regard to financialsâ 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) â 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) â 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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Oct. 30, 2015

Oct. 30, 2015

Total of 11 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 30 00:53:03 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.18% | 2 | 21.09% | 26796 | david.closson at icann.org 18.18% | 2 | 18.48% | 23485 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 9.09% | 1 | 15.30% | 19437 | joly at punkcast.com 9.09% | 1 | 10.14% | 12887 | at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org 9.09% | 1 | 10.08% | 12806 | apisan at unam.mx 9.09% | 1 | 6.64% | 8435 | narten at us.ibm.com 9.09% | 1 | 6.46% | 8211 | devtee at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 6.18% | 7857 | jjs at dyalog.net 9.09% | 1 | 5.63% | 7157 | contact at againstcybercrime.eu --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 11 |100.00% | 127071 | Total

1 0

WEBCAST FRIDAY: The High Politics of Internet Governance – WSIS+10 Panel @ColumbiaSIPA
by Joly MacFie Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

SIPA have kindly offered ISOC-NY 5 seats at this event. *Only if you definitely will attend* please RSVP at http://www.meetup.com/isoc-ny/events/226348878/. For the rest of us there will be a livestream. joly posted: "On Friday October 30 2015 Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs will present a lunchtime panel The High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a Decade after the World Summit on the Information Society. On Dece" [image: SIPA WSIS+10] <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501>On *Friday October 30 2015* Columbia University's *School of International and Public Affairs <https://sipa.columbia.edu/>* will present a lunchtime panel *The High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a Decade after the World Summit on the Information Society <https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-inter…>*. On December 15-16 in New York, the United Nations is convening a *General Assembly High-Level Meeting <http://unpan3.un.org/wsis10/GA-High-Level-Meeting> *to review the goals of the World Summit on the Information Society after a decade (WSIS+10) and to craft a future vision for the information society. Input from various stakeholders has raised questions about the future of the Internet and who will run it. This Columbia SIPA panel will explain the implications of this dialog for Internet sustainability, security, and freedom, and how this high-level discussion connects to the planned transition of U.S. oversight in Internet governance. Moderator: *Merit Janow*, Dean, School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), Columbia University. Panel: *Laura DeNardis*, Professor, American University, and Senior Research Scholar, Columbia SIPA; *Gordon Goldstein*, Managing Director and Head of External Affairs, Silver Lake Group; *Ambassador David Gross*, Partner, Wiley Rein; *Veni Markovski*, Vice President, ICANN; *Ambassador Janis Mazeiks*, Ambassador, Permanent Mission of the Republic of Latvia to the United Nations. The event will be webcast live via the *Columbia SIPA Livestream Channel <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501>*. *What: The High Politics of Internet Governance: Global Policy Conflicts a Decade after the World Summit on the Information Society <https://sipa.columbia.edu/experience-sipa/events/the-high-politics-of-inter…> Where: School of International and Public Affairs, NYC When: Friday October 30 2015 1pm-2pm EDT | 17:00-18:00 UTC Webcast: http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501 <http://livestream.com/sipa/events/4458501> Twitter: @ColumbiaSIPA <https://twitter.com/search?q=%40ColumbiaSIPA> | #WSIS10 <https://twitter.com/hashtag/WSIS10>* Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152#respond> See all comments <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8152 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

New Public Comment: New gTLD Program Implementation Review Draft Report
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the New gTLD Program Implementation Review Draft Report has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/new-gtld-draft-review-2015-09-23-en The dates of the Public Comment will be 22 September 2015 - 7 December 2015 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-new-gtld-draft-review-23sep15(a)icann.org. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here: https://community.icann.org/x/urJYAw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

New Public Comment: Removal of Searchable Whois Service From .MEET Registry Agreement
by ICANN At-Large Staff Oct. 27, 2015

Oct. 27, 2015

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the Removal of Searchable Whois Service From .MEET Registry Agreement has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/meet-proposed-amendment-2015-10-22-en The dates of the Public Comment will be 22 October 2015 - 4 December 2015 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-meet-proposed-amendment-22oct15(a)icann.org. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here: https://community.icann.org/x/t7JYAw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

Total of 20 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 23 00:53:02 EDT 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 5.00% | 1 | 58.16% | 322479 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 15.00% | 3 | 6.76% | 37464 | david.closson at icann.org 10.00% | 2 | 7.74% | 42901 | ron.baione at yahoo.com 10.00% | 2 | 2.73% | 15112 | ocl at gih.com 5.00% | 1 | 3.80% | 21091 | ariel.liang at icann.org 5.00% | 1 | 2.62% | 14511 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 2.54% | 14068 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 2.32% | 12888 | info at hoferichter.eu 5.00% | 1 | 2.08% | 11561 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 2.03% | 11258 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 5.00% | 1 | 1.99% | 11019 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 1.74% | 9674 | gbruen at knujon.com 5.00% | 1 | 1.60% | 8876 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 5.00% | 1 | 1.56% | 8643 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.00% | 1 | 1.32% | 7307 | w.yu at gmx.net 5.00% | 1 | 1.02% | 5650 | pierredovonou at hotmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 20 |100.00% | 554502 | Total

2 1

EFF comments to IAG-WHOIS consultation
by Christopher Wilkinson Oct. 24, 2015

Oct. 24, 2015

> Good afternoon:: FYI - we have received the EFF submission to the current public consultation on the IAG-WHOIS report. May I invite At Large participants to add their comments, as appropriate. Many thanks CW > >> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/domain-registrars-have-ask-icanns-per…

7 7

Re: [At-Large] (no subject)
by David Closson Oct. 23, 2015

Oct. 23, 2015

Greetings all, ICANN IT Operations can indeed implement the DMARC “fix ups" for our mailman system. We were waiting to test a vendor provided backport (changes from a newer version) patch for our mailman system. We have completed testing as of this morning and plan schedule the change for this weekend. The change will be almost transparent with exception to senders from domains with strict reject DMARC policies. In this case, the “from:” will be replaced with the list address and we will insert a “reply-to:” header with the senders address. Our testing indicates this is working flawlessly with the vendor patch. The lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org and lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org cannot have this “fix up” enabled until the translation email parser is modified to look at the "reply-to” header when a DMARC sender “fix-up” is applied. The code change may take a few more weeks. -- David Closson Director of IT Operations, ICANN 12025 Waterfront Dr. Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094 Office: +1-310-578-8670 Cell: +1-213-270-3866 -- -----Original Message----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> Date: Friday, October 23, 2015 at 11:54 AM To: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com> Cc: "david.closson" <david.closson(a)icann.org>, "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (no subject) >> Perhaps the issue can be raised at a future At-Large Technology >> Taskforce call. I've added this issue to the >> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_di… >> page > >Sorry, I'm overcommitted already and have no time. In the very short >term, the only plausible way to work around DMARC damage is to upgrade to >mailman 3.x and use some of their rewriting hacks. They make the lists >work worse since you can't tell who each message is from, but at least >they get deliivered. > >In the longer run, this week the same people who brought us DMARC have an >add-on called ARC that, assuming it works like it should, should mitigate >much of the DMARC damage and let people resume running lists the way they >always have. > >> >> Dev Anand >> >> On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 2:26 PM, David Closson <david.closson(a)icann.org> wrote: >>> Thanks John. >>> >>> We can discuss off-list if you would like. >>> >>> Yes, I was attempting to avoid an email discussion regarding DMARC but we already have a upgrade planned to our mailman system since some DMARC support is a necessity moving forward. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> David Closson >>> Director of IT Operations, ICANN >>> 12025 Waterfront Dr. Suite 300 >>> Los Angeles, CA 90094 >>> Office: +1-310-578-8670 >>> Cell: +1-213-270-3866 >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >>> Date: Thursday, October 22, 2015 at 10:54 AM >>> To: "david.closson" <david.closson(a)icann.org> >>> Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] (no subject) >>> >>>>> We are working to provide a solution to this problem as quickly as possible. >>>>> We will update Valentina Pavel (ICANN IT support case holder) who can in turn advise the Atlarge stakeholders. >>>> >>>> It's actually called DMARC, and I can report there is some work in >>>> progress to fix it at the group that caused the DMARC problems in the >>>> first place. >>>> >>>> R's, >>>> John >>> _______________________________________________ >>> At-Large mailing list >>> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.… >>> >>> At-Large Official Site: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__atlarge.icann.org&d=BQI… >>

2 2