[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Fri Jul 17 20:29:43 UTC 2015


In this, I think there is a middle way.

I think it makes a lot of sense to have staff transparency, save and
secure whistle blowing, audits and access to the ombudsman's office for
redress of their issues.

I think it make sense to make sure that all staff is trained in the
ICANN multistakeholder methods.

I think it makes sense to work with staff as opposed to treating them
like some how other.

I think that those of us who work with them should also have a role in
their reviews.

i think there may also be a role for some sort of questioning as
suggested.  we have started doing a both of this on GNSO weekends and it
is something that could become more regularized and part of senior staff
evaluations especially for their bonus determination.

But when it comes to managing them, I believe that this still has to be
managed though the Board and senior management.  Who we should also have
a role in reviewing.

None of it WS1 requirements, but most definitely open challenges for WS2.


On 17-Jul-15 22:11, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> I'm at a real loss to understand why people are opposed to this idea,
> especially since I typically agree with both James and David. 
> My best guess is that you see ICANN as more of a corporation, and I
> see it more as a public interest organization.
> This approach of external accountability by having informed people ask
> questions directly on a specific topic to the people that make the
> decisions is extremely common. In fact it is a bedrock of the
> democracies that most of us live in. 
> And it has a long history of being effective, particularly where there
> is no competition (ICANN is a natural monopoly) and when the
> organization in question has a significant degree of power (ICANN gets
> to decide and that's that).
> ICANN is hiring people - and paying them handsomely - to act in the
> internet community's interests. I can't for the life of me understand
> why obliging them to answer questions on specific topics that they are
> paid to carry out in the interests of the internet community is a bad
> thing.
> Plus, it happens all the time now. Staff are constantly attending
> different sessions and answering questions. Its part of the job. The
> difference is: if ICANN corporate doesn't *want* to tell you something
> then it doesn't, and no one can make it either. That is the core
> accountability problem.
> When we have a situation - as we have with this recent .Africa
> decision - where both the Board and staff are found to have broken
> ICANN's bylaws - what next? We simply say "don't do that again"?
> That approach is why there have been no less than seven formal reviews
> in the past 10 years. And despite all the processes and mechanisms put
> in place, there remains a huge problem and gap. 
> There is no actual way to hold the people that make the decisions (the
> Board) and implement the changes (the staff) accountable for what they
> do. 
> When everything goes smoothly it's not a problem; when it doesn't,
> ICANN corporate has learned it can simply brush it under the carpet.
> But of course every time that happens, there is someone in the
> community that feels aggrieved. 
> And when that is done again and again, almost reflexively on ICANN's
> part, it erodes trust. And that is why there is such little trust in
> ICANN corporate. What am I proposing is a way to end that vicious
> circle but doing what? Asking a few questions.
> Kieren
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>> wrote:
>     The more I consider the idea of holding staff "accountable" to
>     "The Community," the more convinced I am that this would fast
>     become an organizational nightmare. 
>     Non-exec members of staff should be held accountable to their
>     direct supervisor, and the chain of authority up to the CEO. It is
>     not appropriate to insert the Community in that hierarchy, or to
>     haul these folks in front of public inquiry committees. You have
>     mentioned that the community would not make hire/fire decisions,
>     so what is the point of this exercise, except to publicly shame
>     the staff member, sully their professional reputation, and destroy
>     their future career prospects?  No sane person would want to work
>     for ICANN if it means subjecting themselves to several thousand
>     self-appointed bosses, who may or may not have any relevant
>     expertise to judge the employee's performance. The near-term
>     outcome would be an exodus of anyone with talent.  And recruiting
>     competent new hires would be difficult, expensive, or both. 
>     Executive employees are a different story, but even in their case
>     I believe that community influence should be indirect, such as
>     including a community review as a component of their annual
>     performance review, or notifying the CEO if the exec no longer has
>     the trust and confidence of the community. If the CEO repeatedly
>     fails to act on this, the he or she should be shown the door. 
>     Thank you,
>     J.
>     ____________
>     James Bladel
>     GoDaddy
>     On Jul 17, 2015, at 20:39, Kieren McCarthy
>     <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com <mailto:kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>> 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. 
>>     > 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?
>>     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.
>>     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.
>>     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. 
>>     And those people are... the 2,000 people that turn up to ICANN
>>     meetings. The community. 
>>     Kieren
>>     On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM, David Cake
>>     <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>> wrote:
>>         Eberhard has a point. 
>>         There are legitimate reasons for staff to want to not answer
>>         some questions - some personnel issues should remain
>>         confidential, some security issues should have disclosure
>>         delayed until the problem has been fixed or mitigated, etc. 
>>         The Ombudsman should have access to any internal document,
>>         and the discretion and training to decide what is reasonable
>>         to release. Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good
>>         fit for this role?
>>         Regards 
>>         David
>>         (my first post to CCWG Accountability - hi everybody)
>>>         On 16 Jul 2015, at 2:03 pm, Dr Eberhard W Lisse
>>>         <epilisse at gmail.com <mailto:epilisse at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>         Cool, another Ombudsman.
>>>         el
>>>         -- 
>>>         Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>>         On Jul 16, 2015, at 04:05, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com
>>>         <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>>>>         How about an independent inspector general?
>>>         [...]
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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
>>         <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
>>     <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.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list