Independent Review Process (IRP) Media and Public Comments
August 2015
- IRP Panel Catalogs ICANN Accountability Failures over .Africa INTA
- DotConnectAfrica Trust Response to John Jeffrey’s ICANN Legal Blog Posting CircleID
- Behind-the-scenes actions make ICANN culpable in DotAfrica IRP CIO East Africa
- Second applicant cites the .Africa IRP ruling in quest for review, .HALAL and .ISLAM Attorney on unsubstantiated GAC Advice DomainingAfrica
- The McFadden Files: How Geo Panel contractor bungled .Africa evaluation to favour ICANN’s preferred candidate TandaaBiashara
- DCA Trust disagrees with ICANN on “refine that GAC Advice” Post-IRP Board Resolution DA
- US govt: Any thoughts on ICANN running the internet? Any at all? Speak your brains NOW The Register
- .Africa IRP: The Transcript that cost ICANN – GAC’s “Creative ambiguity, We leave things unclear so we don’t have conflict” DNA
-
ICANN Accountability: “Creative Ambiguity” at Work in the “.AFRICA” Decision ANA
- “Case far from Closed” says BBC: Unsuccessful ICANN interview on .africa Cover up DomainNewsAfrica
- What Brands Need to Know About ICANN’s Treatment of the .AFRICA Applications Fairwinds Partners
- ICANN’s dotAfrica Dispute BBC
- DotConnectAfrica gTLD application process moves on Afro-IP
- Did ZACR and Africa Union ignore the warning to be wary of wrong doing over .Africa? TandaaBiashara
July 2015
- ICANN further implicated in .Africa controversy, More light shined on redact-happy DNS overlord The Register UK
- Booking.com uses .africa precedent to challenge .hotels ruling DomainIncite
- Rage Against the ICANN Machine CircleID
- Having been slammed and embarrassed, ICANN tells the world: We’ve done nowt wrong The Register UK
- ICANN gibt DCA-Bewerbung zweite Chance Domain-recht.de
- Will 2016 Politics Trump Bipartisan Support for the MSM and DOTCOM Act? CircleID
- Unredacted: ICANN’s hidden role in fierce battle over .Africa rights: The Register UK
- ICANN dot AFRICA IRP: WHO Redacted WHAT In the Final Declaration? Domain Mondo
- ICANN loses .africa case in the midst of Congressional accountability oversight DomainingAfrica
- ICANN’s “African Passions”
- DCA Trust IRP Decision: ICANN Failed the Global Internet Community: Domain Mondo
- Ethiopian Born Entrepreneur Sophia Bekele Wins .Africa Domain Name Accountability Suit Against ICANN
Comments: Ethio Info Desk - ICANN Loses Independent Review Panel Decision For Unfairly Treating TLD Applicant & Improper Deference to Governments: IP Justice
- ICANN loses .Africa case: IRP panel rules in favor of DCA: DomainNewsAfrica
- East Africa: DCA Trust Wins .Africa IRP, ICANN to Pay Over Kshs 60 Million in Costs: AllAfrica
- DCA Trust wins .africa IRP, ICANN to pay over Kshs 60 million in costs CIO East Africa
- Breaking: DotConnectAfrica Trust victorious on its challenge of ICANN Board over .africa: Tandabiashara
- Review Panel Chides ICANN Board, Government Reps: BNA
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.
Pierre Lotis NANKEP
****
Congratulations! Never say die :-)_Samwel Ochanji
****
Congrats_Mildred Sika Tettey
****
Issues abound for new #gTLD program as panel finds #ICANN 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