[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability
Kieren McCarthy
kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
Sat Jul 18 13:10:30 UTC 2015
No, ICANN accountability is the roadrunner and the coyote is the CWG-ACCT /
ATRT / IIC / OneWorldTrust / internet community.
Kieren
On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:20 AM Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In the cartoon, you are The Coyote and ICANN is the roadrunner?
>
> cheers,
> avri
>
>
> On 18-Jul-15 14:09, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> > My thought on that statement is best summed up by this graphic... :)
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 1:22 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150718/fa4e1ab6/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list