[CCWG-ACCT] "Staff Accountability" has been assigned to Work Stream 2 since Frankfurt, and there was no decision to remove it by the CCWG
robin at ipjustice.org
Mon Feb 8 17:24:00 UTC 2016
Thanks, but I do believe this was an error that needs to be corrected. I participated in all the Dublin CCWG discussions and have no recollection of the CCWG “deciding" not to pursue staff accountability in WorkStream 2 and to remove it from our work plan. But not wanting to trust only my memory, I went back and reviewed all the agendas, notes, and other records from the CCWG meetings in Dublin, and indeed there is no mention of this “decision" to cancel our earlier work of assigning staff accountability to WorkStream 2.
So unless someone can point to a recorded decision by the CCWG not to pursue staff accountability from Work Stream 2, the issue must go back in, as it was improperly removed in the first place.
> On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr> wrote:
> Dear Robin,
> I do not believe this was an error.
> The conversation about narrowing the list of WS2 items took place in Dublin, focusing on those items most related with the IANA Stewardship transition. This ended up with the current list, while we agreed that other items, such as staff accountability, could be addressed through Icann’s existing (and reinforced) continuous improvement system.
> That being said, during our discussions we had identified ideas such as a Staff-Community interactions code of conduct, which would be immensely useful to Icann. All it would take to start this would be an agreement between the Board and the SO/ACs to launch a working group.
> De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>] De la part de Robin Gross
> Envoyé : dimanche 7 février 2016 18:00
> À : CCWG-Accountability
> Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] "Staff Accountability" has been assigned to Work Stream 2 since Frankfurt, and there was no decision to remove it by the CCWG
> Our 3rd draft report contains an error that needs to be corrected in the final version of the report.
> Specifically, paragraph 34 on page 8 of Annex 12, which provides the details for Rec. 12’s Work Stream 2 work states:
> “Public comments revealed that a review of staff accountability should not be pursued.”
> I do not recall any such CCWG conversation or decision to remove "staff accountability" from WS2, and I’ve been on every call since the public comment period referenced in the text.
> And given recent events and the growing concerns about the CEO’s conflict of interest with China, I can’t imagine this group would come to such a conclusion, if a conversation were too happen on the topic.
> So unless someone can point to a conversation in the record where the CCWG did in fact decide to remove staff accountability from WS2 based on public comments, the issue must go back in to our report where CCWG assigned it, since its removal appears to be 'accidental’ by the staff-drafters in the last moments of drafting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community