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

Tue Apr 18 22:36:42 UTC 2017

Dear Christopher, all:

I would like to start by clarifying that this is the document of the Staff
Accountability subgroup, not "mine".

Secondly, that we'd like to ask people to give feedback at the next plenary.

Thirdly, that any discussion of this subject risks making people
uncomfortable, especially ICANN staff.  We can only mitigate that by being
clear about what we are trying to do:

- look at systems
- improve things in the future

We can only do that work by being sure the problems or issues identified
are real ones. So some specific details about things that have happened
need to be dealt with sensitively. Please don't raise people's names or
specific cases in the Google doc or on the lists - if you need to share
information about past events, please do it out of the public gaze.

On the substance of Christopher's email:

- since our subgroup isn't mandated to take the broad approach you suggest
(of identifying "the principle failings of ICANN"), we didn't consider
doing so. It might be a more effective way to do parts of the whole CCWG's
work, but it isn't what we are doing.

- in the absence of such an holistic approach, the notion of identifying
issues is intended to avoid personalising or dealing with individual cases
where anyone has had an issue with anyone else.  We do not have a mandate
to, and do not want to, become some kind of kangaroo court - I think you
would support that sentiment.

- the next steps in the work of the subgroup are to narrow down the list of
"issues" and to develop responses to them that mitigate them, and their
impacts, by resolving their causes where possible.

- that total sum of work would be what we ask the community for comment on
over the middle of the year.

- the language in the table is not intended to be judgemental or to ascribe
fault. We are dealing essentially with accountability and performance
systems.  That's the focus. If the language looks that way, we must fix it
because that is not the intention. My own view based on what I have
experienced directly and seen through this process is that there are some
systemic gaps that can be closed quite straightforwardly, but I don't have
the evidence yet to validate that and neither does anyone else.

Thanks for the feedback on your part which indicates you haven't seen any
of the issues identified as playing out.

Jordan

On 19 April 2017 at 06:48, lists at christopherwilkinson.eu <
lists at christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

> 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/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9
> MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROosNU/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
>
>
>

-- 
Jordan Carter

Chief Executive
*InternetNZ *

+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
jordan at InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz

*A better world through a better Internet*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20170419/7d850563/attachment.html>