[CCWG-ACCT] Call for input - Staff Accountability issues list - CW feedback

Tue Apr 18 18:48:10 UTC 2017

Dear Jordan:

Thankyou. I have read your draft issues Analysis Table.
I must say that I find that this is not a very constructive approach to the matter.

After many years' experience with the GAC and At Large and a reasonable background in ccTLD matters, I do not recognise the 'Issues' as described.

I would also be concerned that the drafting of some of the 'Impacts' might suggest conflicts, hostility and insecurity, without justification. 
Furthermore, it will always be difficult to base an evidence-based policy on 'unexpressed concerns'.

More generally, I assume that your SA WG will develop recommendations which take account of the mutual rights and responsibilities that arise from ICANN's contracts with the staff.
Also, in the event of complaints from members of the community, are existing procedures satisfactory?
Do the SA WG's proposals respect confidentiality and the rights of individual complainants and members of the staff?

Alternatively, if asked, I might have suggested an entirely different approach:

Question: which have been the principal failings of ICANN in recent years?
To what extent, if any, have the staff been responsible or complicit in sustaining proposals that have given rise to these failures?

I can think of two areas where this hypothesis might be tested:

1.	The new gTLD programme and specifically ignoring advice against vertical integration and failure to implement support for undeserved regions.

2.	Longstanding refusal to address the fact that Whois breaches privacy laws in many jurisdictions, notably the EU. 
 	(I gather this was discussed for the first time with data protection commissioners during ICANN58)

So, you see, my list would be substantive, but short. And I would not pre-suppose any form of negligence or manquement on the part of the staff unless substantiated in a specific instance.

I would not set up an enquiry which sets the staff up against the community, across the board.

Regards

Christopher

PS:	I shall investigate the possibility of introducing these comments into your Google Doc, but I am not optimistic. Perhaps the staff could help me.

On 18 Apr 2017, at 02:34, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

> Dear CCWG participants, 
> 
> The Staff Accountability subgroup has been following the changed approach to our work we agreed together in Copenhagen at ICANN 58.  
> 
> We now need some input from you, and we hope you can offer some thoughts. This is *not* a First Reading request, it is a request for you to share some experience you may or may not have with us over the next week or so.
> 
> 
> In dealing with the staff accountability subject, we are in a "problem identification" phase. We are trying to understand and log the challenges or concerns people have with staff accountability matters.  
> 
> With each issue identified, we are identifying CONTRIBUTIONS to that issue (i.e. what is making it an issue / problem); and IMPACTS of that issue (what are the consequences of the issue, what effect does it have on the ICANN system?).
> 
> Once we know the set of issues, we'll start working on ways to solve them. But being clear about the issues or problems is the first step, and where we are now.
> 
> Please review the table attached (.pdf or .docx), or in Google docs, at <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROosNU/edit?usp=sharing>
> 
> 
> We would welcome your feedback on these particular points:
> 
> 1. Are the issues identified so far issues which seem general, or are they based (to your knowledge) on one-off circumstances?  [we should only try and solve systemic or recurring issues, not one-offs] 
> 
> 2. Are there issues not on the list that we should be thinking about? (If so, please add them as tracked changes in the google doc)
> 
> 3. Are there other contributions to the issues in the list, or impacts from the issues, that you can add to make the table richer and more accurate? (if so, please add them as tracked changes in the google doc)
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sharing your thinking with us over the next week or so.  It would be most helpful if you could add your thoughts in the Google doc rather than by email on the list. 
> 
> 
> Avri Doria, Jordan Carter
> Co-Rapporteurs, Staff Accountability, CCWG
> <2017-04-17-StaffAcct-IssuesAnalysisTable.docx><2017-04-17-StaffAcct-IssuesAnalysisTable.pdf>_______________________________________________
> 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/20170418/ab70f617/attachment.html>