[CCWG-ACCT] "Staff Accountability" has been assigned to Work Stream 2 since Frankfurt, and there was no decision to remove it by the CCWG

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Mon Feb 8 23:52:40 UTC 2016


Hi,

I also do not remember it.  And when I saw it thought it was a typo
(misplaced 'not') but forgot to mention it to anyone.  Grateful to Robin
for bringing it up.

But my attention does wander on occasion so I may have missed it.

It should be findable in the transcripts.  Is there any way easily to
search all of the transcripts?

avri


On 08-Feb-16 10:03, Edward Morris wrote:
> My memory is usually pretty good and agrees with Robin's. I don't
> recall any decision to remove staff accountability from our work plan
> and, as recent events demonstrate, think it's an essential part of our
> overall accountability effort. Just as we hope to create an improved
> Whistleblower program in WS2 and give staff access to the Ombudsman,
> which they do not have now, we do need to have mechanisms to ensure
> that this protected staff acts in accordance with community direction.
> A rouge staff could cause as many problems for our governance model as
> a rouge Board. Certainly something to be looked at in WS2.
>
> Best,
>
> Ed Morris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 Feb 2016, at 09:33, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mathieu,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto: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. 
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>> Mathieu
>>>  
>>> *De :* 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.
>>>  
>>> Robin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 8 Feb 2016, at 09:33, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>> wrote:
>
>> Dear Mathieu,
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill at afnic.fr
>>> <mailto: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. 
>>>  
>>> Best,
>>> Mathieu
>>>  
>>> *De :* 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.
>>>  
>>> Robin
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> 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



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list