[CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2

[Roelof Meijer]

"Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.

To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.

Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?"

Yes, completely

Cheers,

Roelof

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>>
Date: maandag 22 juni 2015 17:19
To: Accountability Cross Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] A question about WS1 v WS2

Hi all

I had the dubious pleasure of reading a post by one of our participants which got me thinking a range of things[1].. some of them constructive :-)

One is something I wanted to test others' views on.

Both in Kieran's piece and in the other feedback from various conversations and comments, there's a clear current of both staff/management accountability and ICANN entities/organisations accountability as needing work.

Now, I agree with that - I think the openness of this ICANN system is very poor, due to many things - the ridiculous time demands it makes on people to understand how it works (something none of our proposals materially complicates), the density and extent of the information, the rushed pace of many discussions, the ICANN way of doing multiple things at once, etc etc.

I also think the culture across the organisation is relatively inwardly focused... and that the Board has a job to do in building a culture and practice of accountability and community engagement in parts of the staff.

But those are the views of an insider/outsider: someone whose job links him to this ICANN system, but who has only (!) attended six meetings of ICANN. Others of you will have different perspectives.

To the crux of my point: while I would really like us to tackle all the above, we face an imperative to not hold up the transition. I think we have been clear about that from the beginning, which was delayed from when it should have happened due to some of the factors I note above.

So: my interpretation has always been as follows:

Making ICANN's operations more generally accountable, and the whole organisation more outward looking and open, is very important - but our job in WorkStream 1 has been to put in place the structural features of a new accountability settlement that will give us the chance to achieve that in WorkStream 2.

To put it another way: we have to constrain ourselves to building the levers in this WS1 process that will allow the broader changes to approach that are needed and will be on the table in WS2, and then the first of the new ATRT reviews.

Do you share this understanding of why we have limited our focus?

Interested in people's thoughts on this. Want to know if I am out on a limb!


thanks
Jordan




[1]: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/18/us_government_stages_another_iana_intervention/

--
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
InternetNZ

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
jordan at internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
Skype: jordancarter

A better world through a better Internet

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150622/135e8d07/attachment.html>