[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability
Avri Doria
avri at acm.org
Fri Jul 17 20:47:55 UTC 2015
Hi,
I do not know about you or others, but i have no particular staff member
in mind. Most of the ones I know are mostly pretty great most of the
time. If someone made errors in this case, then it provides a good
learning opportunity.
Though I believe actions and actors are fairly tied together, and
actions only improve when actors are better trained and supported and
rewarded for the right stuff.
avri
On 17-Jul-15 22:29, Greg Shatan wrote:
> I think we are fixated too much in this discussion on going after a
> particular staff member. The focus should be on "staff actions," as a
> class of actions, not on "actions of staff members," as a class of actors.
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
> 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>
> > <mailto: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>
> > <mailto: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
>
>
> ---
> 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
>
>
---
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