[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jul 17 20:22:20 UTC 2015
Hi,
And what I am saying is that it isn't a mistake, just a job not yet
completed.
avri
On 17-Jul-15 22:15, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> What I am saying Avri is that we should not keep making the same
> mistake over and over again.
>
> And one of those mistakes is to continue to believe that a single
> person can bring a decent level of accountability to ICANN. They
> cannot. Especially when they are reliant on ICANN for doing their job
> and getting paid.
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 17-Jul-15 20:38, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> > > some personnel issues should remain confidential,
> >
> > I don't understand why people keep putting this strawman out
> there. No
> > one is suggesting, or indeed has ever suggested, that personnel
> issues
> > be included in a proper accountability mechanism.
>
> True.
>
> >
> > > Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good fit for this
> role?
> >
> > I'll give you three good reasons:
> >
> > 1. The Ombudsman was created in 2004. Despite numerous efforts
> to make
> > the role effective, it has never happened. Why keep making the same
> > mistake?
>
> Previous failure is not a mistake.
> I believe we can succeed at doing this.
>
> And the Ombudsman can get access to any information. It is uncertain
> how much he can do with it at this point, but at least someone who is
> trusted can look and can give testimony about the validity of
> redactions.
>
> Sure I would like to see ICANN live of to ATRT obligations, take
> on CSR
> seriously, have reasonable RR and stronger independent reviews and
> audits &c., but we should not give up the partial successes
> because they
> are not right yet. WS2 will focus on strengthening the ombudsman role
> and I think we can do it.
>
> >
> > 2. The Ombudsman is completely reliant on ICANN corporate. For
> access
> > to people and documents, for resources, for salary, for technical
> > support, for logistical support, for an office, for a room at ICANN
> > meetings, for everything except his own body. And his role and
> what he
> > can do is determined by ICANN's legal department in the rules that
> > they wrote. The Ombudsman also signs a very strong confidentiality
> > agreement with ICANN that effectively ties their hands on everything
> > except illegal activity. See point 1.
>
> Ombudsman in general are paid for by the company they work for. And
> they often still have strong independence. Some even have power
> to fix
> things. We should fix the aspects of the ombudsman support that
> need to
> be fixed, we should not give up.
>
> See response to point 1.
>
> >
> > 3. An Ombudsman is a single person. And one completely reliant on
> > ICANN. This provides an enormous degree of control by ICANN and very
> > little freedom for the accountability role the Ombusdsman is
> supposed
> > to fulfill. There are numerous people able to testify that ICANN
> > corporate has no hesitation in applying significant pressure on
> > individuals if they act in a way that it deemed a potential threat.
> > All of those people are however under confidentiality agreements
> with
> > ICANN.
> >
>
> Actually we have an Ombudsman's office with 2 people in it.
>
> It either needs to be fixed or we need to walk away from ICANN.
> Some of
> us have done so and are probably making a good living picking on
> ICANN,
> and some of us are thinking of walking away just to make a living
> (volunteering is a difficult vocation). But those who do stay
> need to
> keep trying to fix it for as long as they do stay. And new people
> come
> to the effort all the time, determined to succeed where we fail.
>
> For anyone who says ICANN never improves, I ask them to think back
> to a
> decade ago and compare. Problems there still are, but it is nowhere
> near as bad as it once was. Could be a lot better, but also could be a
> lot worse.
>
> >
> > The only way to bring actual accountability to ICANN is to have
> people
> > that are not dependent on ICANN and are not muzzled by
> confidentiality
> > agreements asking the questions.
>
> True they are necessary. But they are only one part of the
> story. They
> need internal allies.
> And it is my impression that though not as effective as he could have
> been due to conditions you describe, the ombudsman has helped in many
> cases. And does as much as possible to support the people who
> need help.
>
> > And those people are... the 2,000 people that turn up to ICANN
> > meetings. The community.
>
> Actually aren't most of them there to wheel and deal?
> Only hundreds go to meetings dedicated to doing the policy stuff.
>
> And they need the support of a strong ombudsman office.
> and a CSR officer, and ...
>
> That is what this process is all about.
>
> avri
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list