[CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence
ceo at auda.org.au
Sun Jul 12 07:41:48 UTC 2015
See in line below.
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer
.au Domain Administration Ltd
T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112
E: ceo at auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
> On 12 Jul 2015, at 14:17, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
> Hi all, hi Chris:
>> On 12 July 2015 at 15:54, Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>> Hi Jordan,
>> On ATRT, please see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt2-recommendation-implementation-02apr15-en.pdf and let me know the 'strange cases' to which you refer.
> Probably the implementation timetable. The report was submitted in December 2013. It is July 2015. There seem to be ticks in the boxes marking complete for roughly half the components in that (sixty-six) page PDF. Other elements continued (tho this update is April, and it's now July), and some aren't due for well over another year. Is that the kind of pace that we should expect?
"Now, when you say, "ICANN is broken in so many ways, some of which we know, some we suspect, some that are hidden by obfuscation and even secrecy," say more, give concrete examples of brokenness and the directions the fix could take."
You gave ATRT as an example and referred to the "strange case" of failure to implement. Now apparently the problem is the timetable.
You raise a valid question about what pace should be expected. That's a question which can be discussed. However it's not about accountability per se and it is not the same as putting forward ATRT as an example of what George was asking for.
> Also: sixty-six pages is not the kind of summary that is a useful dashboard look at what is happening. Is part of the new dashboard approach going to summarise this information more briefly, more meaningfully?
So we're clear are we that this is not an example of obfuscation or secrecy? Rather it seems you are concerned, now, that there is too much detail. Which indicates to me that what we are actually dealing with is an example "damned if we do and damned if we don't".
> Another question if you know - is there a similar from ATRT1?
I don't know but will find out. However, I do know that ATRT 2 assessed the implementation of ATRT 1 and made a list of those recommendations it considered to be outstanding. There may still be some awaiting GAC action and I suspect there may be others about which there will be dispute as to whether they are completed or not. As was discussed in the public session on reviews that we held in BA, it can be hard to tell what "completion" is for some types of recommendations.
> Avri sometimes mentions things not implemented from ATRT reviews, maybe she can add.
To be clear, you gave this as an example of the brokenness George asked for. I assumed that you had done so from your own knowledge of the situation rather then extrapolating from others comments.
>> On Jonathan’s list, the challenge is to demonstrate a) they are true and b) they are widely held community concerns rather than concerns of some in the community.
>>> Accepted the GC advice to protect the corporation instead of the public interest.
>> Really? What does that mean? And when we‘re clear what it means could we then demonstrate community consensus that whatever it means is a problem?
>> There may well be examples of ‘Board’ action that would have had community consensus to overturn. But a cavalier approach to claiming such really is detrimental to the process we are trying to bring to a consensus based closure.
> Given the CCWG has people with a range of different sets of information, experience and length of service in the ICANN community to hand, part of the work in building consensus is getting the information on the table.
Could not agree with you more. It's why it is important to challenge assertions stated as fact that are actually an individual's opinion or sometimes the re-statement as fact of an opinion of a third party.
> You challenged Jonathan to pose some examples; he did so; as far as I can find, this is the first time you've responded. I didn't quite know what to make of your silence, but now I do at least in respect of one of his points :-)
Jonathan had posted in a subsequent note that he realised he had breached his own suggested protocol by posting the list. I decided on that basis not to respond. Your restatement of the list in the context of answering George's question led to me to chose an example.
> It leads to a more important question tho:
> How can we have a sophisticated, evidence based discussion about the specific examples of failures in ICANN's accountability, the breadth of view as to whether they are failures or not, in a way that helps the CCWG do its work?
Well, we could do what I suggested. Come up with an example from the past that we all understand and agree is something that there would be community consensus to overturn. And acknowledge that in truth these are few and far between.
Or, alternatively, stop justifying our calls for greater accountability by making broad brush, non-evidence based claims that place the staff, the board and often various parts of the community in a bad light and instead acknowledge that greater accountability is a good thing and within reasonable boundaries doesn't actually need to be justified by claims of bad acting in the past.
> Do you / do participants generally think that would be an appropriate thing to spend some time on in WS2?
Good question. Don't know.
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community