<p dir="ltr">Kieren,</p>
<p dir="ltr">You are pointing here to a fundamental question of the complex and multiple organization's objectives the community is trying to cover.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">On Jul 18, 2015 4:45 AM, "Kieren McCarthy" <<a href="mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com">kieren@kierenmccarthy.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> So you are also of the belief that ICANN is more a corporation ...</p>
<p dir="ltr">I hope it is an effective organization for the purpose of managing the DNS in a stable, resilient and secure way, which I think is the initial purpose of the stewardship transition</p>
<p dir="ltr">than a public interest organization, Chris?</p>
<p dir="ltr">From my perspective the public interest perspective is as valid as the first one, but it is more relevant to the direct public interest functions of policy development and contract compliance, than for the operational functions.<br>
><br>
> I think this might be where a lot of the disagreements in general over accountability are coming from.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Maybe we need more than one standard of Accountability, depending on the specific function. And I think the specific standard for the assignment of unique resources should be of the public interest type (I.e. pretty high)<br>
><br>
> For example, ICANN is set up as a member organization but has no members. It is based in California but wishes to be an international organization.<br>
><br>
> I would argue that the very point where ICANN is right now is where it needs to stop being an American corporation and start being an internationall public benefit organization.<br>
><br>
While the operational side requires a fast and efficient business environment (like California's) you may want to argue that an international setting may be more convincing to a wider group of stakeholders. But so far it has not been a high priority to any of the active stakeholders. If not even GAC asks for it, it seems to be stuff for WS n+1.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">> And that means opening up to real accountability rather than keeping everything in house.<br>
></p>
<p dir="ltr">The single best Accountability measure I keep hearing from US Congress, is organizational and/or structural separation of the operation al issues from the public interest ones (policy and compliance). And did me the best arms length separation is separate staff and separate budgets. </p>
<p dir="ltr">And I agree with James and Chris that a challenge this size represents a horrible managerial challenge for any type of organization. But those challenges never arrive at comfortable peaceful moments anyhow. And maybe the Board should be looking for 2 CEOs with separate objectives as per above, instead of a single and conflicted one. And the Boards role would be to keep those diverging forces aligned.</p>
<p dir="ltr">In any case, it is the CCWG itself the one that is tending to expand the scope and the discussion of ICANNs mission, instead if sticking to the narrow technical functions of the CWG......</p>
<p dir="ltr">Have a nice weekend in Paris</p>
<p dir="ltr">Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez<br>
><br>
> Kieren<br>
><br>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:41 PM Chris Disspain <<a href="mailto:ceo@auda.org.au">ceo@auda.org.au</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Thank you James. <br>
>><br>
>> Speaking as a real life, actual CEO…I agree.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Cheers,<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Chris<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 18 Jul 2015, at 05:30 , James M. Bladel <<a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com">jbladel@godaddy.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> The more I consider the idea of holding staff "accountable" to "The Community," the more convinced I am that this would fast become an organizational nightmare. <br>
>>><br>
>>> Non-exec members of staff should be held accountable to their direct supervisor, and the chain of authority up to the CEO. It is not appropriate to insert the Community in that hierarchy, or to haul these folks in front of public inquiry committees. You have mentioned that the community would not make hire/fire decisions, so what is the point of this exercise, except to publicly shame the staff member, sully their professional reputation, and destroy their future career prospects? No sane person would want to work for ICANN if it means subjecting themselves to several thousand self-appointed bosses, who may or may not have any relevant expertise to judge the employee's performance. The near-term outcome would be an exodus of anyone with talent. And recruiting competent new hires would be difficult, expensive, or both. <br>
>>><br>
>>> Executive employees are a different story, but even in their case I believe that community influence should be indirect, such as including a community review as a component of their annual performance review, or notifying the CEO if the exec no longer has the trust and confidence of the community. If the CEO repeatedly fails to act on this, the he or she should be shown the door. <br>
>>><br>
>>> Thank you,<br>
>>><br>
>>> J.<br>
>>> ____________<br>
>>> James Bladel<br>
>>> GoDaddy<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 20:39, Kieren McCarthy <<a href="mailto:kieren@kierenmccarthy.com">kieren@kierenmccarthy.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>>> > some personnel issues should remain confidential, <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> I don't understand why people keep putting this strawman out there. No one is suggesting, or indeed has ever suggested, that personnel issues be included in a proper accountability mechanism. <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 the role effective, it has never happened. Why keep making the same mistake?<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 2. The Ombudsman is completely reliant on ICANN corporate. For access to people and documents, for resources, for salary, for technical support, for logistical support, for an office, for a room at ICANN meetings, for everything except his own body. And his role and what he can do is determined by ICANN's legal department in the rules that they wrote. The Ombudsman also signs a very strong confidentiality agreement with ICANN that effectively ties their hands on everything except illegal activity. See point 1.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> 3. An Ombudsman is a single person. And one completely reliant on ICANN. This provides an enormous degree of control by ICANN and very little freedom for the accountability role the Ombusdsman is supposed to fulfill. There are numerous people able to testify that ICANN corporate has no hesitation in applying significant pressure on individuals if they act in a way that it deemed a potential threat. All of those people are however under confidentiality agreements with ICANN.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> The only way to bring actual accountability to ICANN is to have people that are not dependent on ICANN and are not muzzled by confidentiality agreements asking the questions. <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> And those people are... the 2,000 people that turn up to ICANN meetings. The community. <br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Kieren<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM, David Cake <<a href="mailto:dave@difference.com.au">dave@difference.com.au</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Eberhard has a point. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> There are legitimate reasons for staff to want to not answer some questions - some personnel issues should remain confidential, some security issues should have disclosure delayed until the problem has been fixed or mitigated, etc. <br>
>>>>> The Ombudsman should have access to any internal document, and the discretion and training to decide what is reasonable to release. Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good fit for this role?<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Regards <br>
>>>>> David<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> (my first post to CCWG Accountability - hi everybody)<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 16 Jul 2015, at 2:03 pm, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <<a href="mailto:epilisse@gmail.com">epilisse@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Cool, another Ombudsman.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> el<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 04:05, Phil Corwin <<a href="mailto:psc@vlaw-dc.com">psc@vlaw-dc.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> How about an independent inspector general?<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> <br>
>>>>>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>>>>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
>><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><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">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
><br>
</p>