<div dir="ltr">What I am saying Avri is that we should not keep making the same mistake over and over again.<div><br></div><div>And one of those mistakes is to continue to believe that a single person can bring a decent level of accountability to ICANN. They cannot. Especially when they are reliant on ICANN for doing their job and getting paid.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Kieren</div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Avri Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org" target="_blank">avri@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On 17-Jul-15 20:38, Kieren McCarthy wrote:<br>
> > some personnel issues should remain confidential,<br>
><br>
> I don't understand why people keep putting this strawman out there. No<br>
> one is suggesting, or indeed has ever suggested, that personnel issues<br>
> be included in a proper accountability mechanism.<br>
<br>
</span>True.<br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> > Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good fit for this role?<br>
><br>
> I'll give you three good reasons:<br>
><br>
> 1. The Ombudsman was created in 2004. Despite numerous efforts to make<br>
> the role effective, it has never happened. Why keep making the same<br>
> mistake?<br>
<br>
</span>Previous failure is not a mistake.<br>
I believe we can succeed at doing this.<br>
<br>
And the Ombudsman can get access to any information. It is uncertain<br>
how much he can do with it at this point, but at least someone who is<br>
trusted can look and can give testimony about the validity of redactions.<br>
<br>
Sure I would like to see ICANN live of to ATRT obligations, take on CSR<br>
seriously, have reasonable RR and stronger independent reviews and<br>
audits &c., but we should not give up the partial successes because they<br>
are not right yet. WS2 will focus on strengthening the ombudsman role<br>
and I think we can do it.<br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> 2. The Ombudsman is completely reliant on ICANN corporate. For access<br>
> to people and documents, for resources, for salary, for technical<br>
> support, for logistical support, for an office, for a room at ICANN<br>
> meetings, for everything except his own body. And his role and what he<br>
> can do is determined by ICANN's legal department in the rules that<br>
> they wrote. The Ombudsman also signs a very strong confidentiality<br>
> agreement with ICANN that effectively ties their hands on everything<br>
> except illegal activity. See point 1.<br>
<br>
</span>Ombudsman in general are paid for by the company they work for. And<br>
they often still have strong independence. Some even have power to fix<br>
things. We should fix the aspects of the ombudsman support that need to<br>
be fixed, we should not give up.<br>
<br>
See response to point 1.<br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> 3. An Ombudsman is a single person. And one completely reliant on<br>
> ICANN. This provides an enormous degree of control by ICANN and very<br>
> little freedom for the accountability role the Ombusdsman is supposed<br>
> to fulfill. There are numerous people able to testify that ICANN<br>
> corporate has no hesitation in applying significant pressure on<br>
> individuals if they act in a way that it deemed a potential threat.<br>
> All of those people are however under confidentiality agreements with<br>
> ICANN.<br>
><br>
<br>
</span>Actually we have an Ombudsman's office with 2 people in it.<br>
<br>
It either needs to be fixed or we need to walk away from ICANN. Some of<br>
us have done so and are probably making a good living picking on ICANN,<br>
and some of us are thinking of walking away just to make a living<br>
(volunteering is a difficult vocation). But those who do stay need to<br>
keep trying to fix it for as long as they do stay. And new people come<br>
to the effort all the time, determined to succeed where we fail.<br>
<br>
For anyone who says ICANN never improves, I ask them to think back to a<br>
decade ago and compare. Problems there still are, but it is nowhere<br>
near as bad as it once was. Could be a lot better, but also could be a<br>
lot worse.<br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> The only way to bring actual accountability to ICANN is to have people<br>
> that are not dependent on ICANN and are not muzzled by confidentiality<br>
> agreements asking the questions.<br>
<br>
</span>True they are necessary. But they are only one part of the story. They<br>
need internal allies.<br>
And it is my impression that though not as effective as he could have<br>
been due to conditions you describe, the ombudsman has helped in many<br>
cases. And does as much as possible to support the people who need help.<br>
<span class=""><br>
> And those people are... the 2,000 people that turn up to ICANN<br>
> meetings. The community.<br>
<br>
</span>Actually aren't most of them there to wheel and deal?<br>
Only hundreds go to meetings dedicated to doing the policy stuff.<br>
<br>
And they need the support of a strong ombudsman office.<br>
and a CSR officer, and ...<br>
<br>
That is what this process is all about.<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
---<br>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.<br>
<a href="https://www.avast.com/antivirus" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.avast.com/antivirus</a><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>