[CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability?

[Jordan Carter]

hi all,

On 3 March 2015 at 14:31, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While I agree on the monopolistic analysis, I will just like to note that
> ICANN is not the only organisation in such situation; RIRs for instance is
> another example and they are ran by board.
>
The RIRs are membership organisations. Their boards are elected by their
members and the members essentially own the organisations - and so there is
a powerful direct accountability mechanism already in place to deal with
problems - a mechanism that ICANN lacks.

> I think it will be dangerous OR at least not advisable to subject staff to
> direct accountability to the community. The best that could be done is to
> get the board to do it's job and I think the ultimate ability to remove a
> board member would be enough incentive for any board to deliver on it's
> mandate.
>

I agree we can't have staff reporting to the community, but do think Jeff's
posts give us food for thought.

Jordan


> Regards
> sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 3 Mar 2015 05:30, "Jeff Neuman" <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>
>>  In a non-monopolistic environment, I would completely agree that a
>> corporation's board (whether for profit or not for profit) would adequately
>> address the situation, since customers (in the case of for-profit) or
>> members (in the case of non-profit) would either cease purchasing the
>> company's products/services or cancel membership in a non-profit
>> organization (as examples).  For example, if I am not happy with a company
>> that has proven it cannot keep my information confidential, I can simply
>> take my shopping elsewhere.  If I am not happy with a non-profit because it
>> is not serving my needs, I can go to other non-profits (or even form my
>> own).
>>
>>
>>
>> But here, in the monopolistic environment where contracted parties have
>> no choice but to deal with ICANN, leaving these types of issues to the
>> Board without other meaningful redress is not enough accountability.  After
>> all, it is not as if the contracted parties could go elsewhere if
>> dissatisfied with the operations of ICANN (or in this case the lack of
>> security measures to protect information).  Thus, we have a true
>> accountability problem.
>>
>>
>>
>> To summarize, in a monopolistic environment where demand for services are
>> inelastic, relying on a board to hold staff accountable for these types of
>> failures in my opinion is not enough.  Without the potential for losing
>> customers or community participation because of such failures, there is
>> little incentive for the board to act.
>>
>>
>>
>> These are just my personal opinions.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>>
>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>>
>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>>
>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>>
>> E: jeff.neuman at valideus.com or jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>>
>> T: +1.703.635.7514
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079
>>
>> @Jintlaw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz]
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 2, 2015 8:33 PM
>> *To:* Jeff Neuman
>> *Cc:* accountability-cross-community at icann.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Other forms of Accountability?
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Jeff for sharing this. I think the practical work going on in the
>> Working Parties is dealing with many broader items than just the ICANN
>> Board.
>>
>>
>>
>> Your example posits an interesting question: is "accountability" focused
>> on the governance level, or on operations?
>>
>>
>>
>> That is, is a staff level execution failure something the community or
>> customers has accountability tools to deal with, beyond ensuring the Board
>> holds CE to account?
>>
>>
>>
>> One way of looking at this example is that it's up to the Board to hold
>> its Chief Executive responsible for delivering secure services and that
>> that's where it lies. If the Board fails to do so, some of the mechanisms
>> under debate would help deal with that. Review and redress options would
>> also provide some relief to those damaged.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>
>> Jordan
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3 March 2015 at 07:01, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com> wrote:
>>
>>  Removing Board Directors, while taking up most of the discussion for
>> the last few weeks does not address most of the accountability issues we
>> have with ICANN.
>>
>> Not sure if you saw this article:
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/03/02/icann_suffers_another_security_breach/
>>
>>
>>
>> Which accountability measures do we have to safeguard us from this?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Jeffrey J. Neuman*
>>
>> *Senior Vice President *|*Valideus USA* | *Com Laude USA*
>>
>> 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600
>>
>> Mclean, VA 22102, United States
>>
>> E: *jeff.neuman at valideus.com <jeff.neuman at valideus.com>* or *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com
>> <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>>
>> T: +1.703.635.7514
>>
>> M: +1.202.549.5079
>>
>> @Jintlaw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Jordan Carter
>>
>> Chief Executive
>> *InternetNZ*
>>
>> 04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
>> jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>>
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>>
>>


-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ*

04 495 2118 (office) | +64 21 442 649 (mob)
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/20150303/f01cc01e/attachment.html>