[CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Sun Jul 12 08:13:41 UTC 2015
Sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 12 Jul 2015 8:42 am, "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
> 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.
+1 to above, I think what needs to be improved on is that staff/board
action/inaction should become less of a surprise to the community as much
This will happen when:
- There is clear evidence that the community (including board/staff) are
following their processes.
- There is strong evidence of engaging the community in board's decision
making process. For instance getting community feedback on budget should be
a compulsory item in board's budget approval process. (It's not the same as
making it subject to community approval)
- There is proof that community's recommendations to board are evident in
their actions. However this would only be more helpful if the community
itself work together to achieve rough consensus on issues.
Overall "improving accountability" is a continuous exercise and if
everything was perfect then there may be no further progress to be recorded
and perhaps no community.
>> 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
> 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