[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Fri Jul 17 05:32:46 UTC 2015

In the TMCH+50 issue, a big part (larger than the original decision, really) was staff obstruction about who made the decision, under what circumstances etc. This made it fairly clear that the DIDP was inadequate when staff wanted to conceal information. I’ve said for a while that ICANNs biggest problem with transparency isn’t transparency, its accountability - the biggest problem with the DIDP and other transparency measures is that the can unaccountably fail when they are most needed.

I don’t know that it would be a good idea to provide mechanisms for the community to micro-manage issues related to specific personnel - accountability for board and CEO should, in theory, mean that the CEO (or board, or delegated senior staff) can report to the community on management of issues with actions of senior staff (or not senior staff, for that matter). But it is far too easy for ICANN to conceal information about what actually happened, and so stymie any real accountability.

I’m not sure about the mechanism Kieren suggests here. But he is absolutely right that ICANN needs better mechanisms to determine what actually happened with a problematic decision. As Jeff says, whether that is a power delegated to the staff or reserved for the board might change how the issue is dealt with  - but we can’t even know that until we know what happened in some cases.

David

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 7:53 am, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at valideus.com> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> Read the document we came up with.  We do not go into personnel issues.  One of the things we  in WP3 ask for is a clear description and delineation between what powers are delegated to the staff and which are reserved for the Board.  For those powers delegated to the staff without board oversight, we do think there should be accountability measures.
> 
> Sent from my iPad
> 
> On Jul 15, 2015, at 6:22 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
> 
>> I am also reviewing the unredacted report, and share the concerns of many expressed here. That said, I also do not want to go down a path where the Community inserts itself in to the Staff chain of authority, or starts to micro-manage personnel issues.
>> 
>> There are other ways to implement Staff Accountability, and I hope we can have a comprehensive discussion of these in Paris.
>> 
>> Safe travels to all who are en route. See you there.
>> 
>> Thank you,
>> 
>> J.
>> ____________
>> James Bladel
>> GoDaddy
>> 
>> On Jul 15, 2015, at 17:05, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com <mailto:seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> The big question for me is "to what extent can/should the community keep ICANN staff directly accountable". If the board cannot keep the CEO accountable and the CEO in turn cannot keep his/her staff accountable, then i think it is the board that the community should use all its fire-power against while i expect board to perform its "konfu" on the CEO as well. ;-)
>>> 
>>> I am not sure taking ICANN staff directly down the legal/IRP path as suggested will be an healthy thing to do. I think proper means of channelling grievances between a/some community member and staff needs to happen through the appropriate organisational hierarchy and the leadership of the organisation should ensure justice is done...i don't think such process should be lead by the community.
>>> 
>>> Regards
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 6:36 PM, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>> wrote:
>>> One of the key things that Strickling mentioned in his accountability blog post was that this group needed to devise accountability mechanisms for ICANN's staff.
>>> 
>>> There is a great example this week of how the staff currently lives outside any form of effective accountability in the unredacted version of the .Africa IRP decision.
>>> 
>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/ <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/>
>>> 
>>> Not only did ICANN staff - its head of operations, no less - intervene in favor of one applicant over another, but when that fact was repeatedly referenced in what is supposed to be an independent review report, the staff decided they would remove that information before the report was published.
>>> 
>>> This is a culture of impunity.
>>> 
>>> What I would like to see introduced to ICANN is the ability to call for hearings/inquiries into issues. Similar to how Congress can hold inquiries into something, compel witnesses to appear, compel the release of information, fact-find and produce a report.
>>> 
>>> Having read all the various legal advice provided by the independent legal experts, it strikes me that the ability for the community to establish such an inquiry and then compel witnesses and evidence to appear is not difficult to set up.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Kieren
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Seun Ojedeji,
>>> Federal University Oye-Ekiti
>>> web:      http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng/>
>>> Mobile: +2348035233535 <>
>>> alt email:  <http://goog_1872880453/>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng <mailto:seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>
>>> 
>>> The key to understanding is humility - my view !
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/ac47a531/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/ac47a531/signature.asc>