[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

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