[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