[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Rec 10

Seun Ojedeji seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Fri Jan 29 05:03:55 UTC 2016


Thanks for sharing, the 3 comments are reasonable enough and its hard to
say no on any of them. However, I just like to emphasis the part on item b
below, as I believe it's most important for me:
"....While there could be a mechanism to better involve the voice of the
group under review"

It will be good to have that inplace soon enough as I think absence of that
may be one of the reason recommendation 10 reads in its current form.

PS: On a side note, I am occasionally trilled by board's approach of
presenting their concerns clearly and with adequate rationale. I only wish
this can be maintained.
On 28 Jan 2016 8:26 p.m., "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> All,
> Here are the current Board comments on Recommendation 10 (SO/AC
> Accountability):
> The Board continues to support this recommendation, and the importance of
> a focus on SO/AC accountability in light of the community empowerment
> recommended by the CCWG.  The Mutual Accountability roundtable is a welcome
> innovation.
> The Bylaws-mandated independent structural review of various ICANN bodies,
> known as Organizational Reviews, will continue to have an important role in
> assessing SO/AC Accountability.  The Board has strong concerns surrounding
> the details In Recommendation 10 on these reviews, particularly in how the
> recommendations might not uphold the import of independence as the key
> facet of that work. Reviews are a mechanism to hold ICANN accountable and
> transparent, but also a means of inspiring a culture of continuous
> improvement. Independence and objectivity are essential ingredients of
> effective performance assessment.
> a)    On the proposal that independent reviews should be commenced at the
> request of a majority of the SO/ACs rather than by the Board - the current
> process is instrumental in ensuring accountability: a regular, predictable
> review cycle that is not left to the discretion of the group to be reviewed
> is necessary to maintain accountability.  The initiation of these reviews
> should be on a predictable cycle, and the proposal on the table leaves the
> possibility that a review might never commence.
> b)   The CCWG draft document also suggests that recommendations should be
> approved only by the SOs/ACs acting through the community forum. This
> removes the Board’s role in approval of recommendations, and could
> undermine the independence and accountability implicit in the current
> process. While there could be a mechanism to better involve the voice of
> the group under review, the Board plays an important role to preserve the
> independence of reviews and ensure that the group under review remains
> accountable.
> c)    The CCWG also suggests that the reviews should happen in two phases
> – a self-assessment by the group under review, and then the independent
> examination after that self-assessment is completed.  Self-assessments by
> the group  under review serve as an important and valuable input into the
> independent examiner’s work. The self-assessment, however, cannot be the
> sole focus of the independent examiner’s work.  It is essential the
> independent examiner reach his/her own conclusions to preserve objectivity,
> impartiality and independence – qualities essential to an effective review
> process.
> Thank you
> Cheers,
> Chris
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160129/b14b8b3f/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list