Independent Review Process (IRP) Media and Public Comments

 August 2015

July 2015

 

Comments:

***

Congratulations to Sophia for her effective leadership.
In 2013, after the decision of ICANN, I had been very disappointed because of the GAC that was corrupt and that brought ICANN to make a historical mistake.

Bravo Bravo!!!

Pierre Lotis NANKEP

IT Engineer
Cameroon

****

Congratulations! Never say die :-)_Samwel Ochanji

****

Congrats_Mildred Sika Tettey

****

Issues abound for new program as panel finds broke own bylaws in awarding ‘.africa‘ domain _Josh Rosen ‏

****

CCWG-Accountability Comments on .Africa

“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 Tonkin, ICANN Board Member (July 16, 2015, emphasis added)

Link: http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-July/004104.html
_______________________________________________________________________________
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

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-July/004112.html

_______________________________________________________________________________
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

http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/2015-July/004074.html

_______________________________________________________________________________
Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 11:43:52 UTC 2015

Previous message: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
Next message: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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
_______________________________________________________________________________
Phil Corwin psc at vlaw-dc.com
Thu Jul 16 15:00:57 UTC 2015

Previous message: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
Next message: [CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

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

 

DCA Digital Digest NewsLetterYou don't want to miss!

DON'T MISS A BEAT WITH OUR FREE & PERSONALIZED DAILY DCA PANAFRICA DIGEST NEWSLETTER