[ST-WP] Additional Stress Test for consideration

[Edward Morris]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for keeping on top of this.



Meanwhile, please feel free to suggest text we could use for each section
> (below):
>

A few thoughts:

Consequence: Staff capture of policy implementation undermines the
legitimacy conferred upon ICANN  by established community based policy
development processes.

Existing accountability mechanisms: The reconsideration review mechanism
allows for appeal to the Board  of staff action that contradict established
ICANN policies.

Outside of strengthening the reconsideration process (WS2) I'm unsure if
the other accountability processes under consideration really do much to
help in this situation.

I look forward to working with everyone in Istanbul to fine tune this
proposed stress test.

Best,

Ed


>
>   Stress Test #__. During implementation of a properly-approved policy,
> ICANN staff substitutes their preferences and creates processes that
> effectively change or negate the policy developed.  Whether staff do so
> intentionally or unintentionally, the result is the same.
>
> Consequence:
>
>
>  Existing Accountability Measures:
>
>  Proposed Accountability Measures:
>
>  Conclusion:
>
>   —
>  Steve
>
>   From: Edward Morris
> Date: Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 7:51 PM
> Cc: "ccwg-accountability4 at icann.org"
> Subject: [ST-WP] Additional Stress Test for consideration
>
>   Hi everybody,
>
> During a call today regarding ICANN’s transition and accountability, David
> Post called for development of a stress test we don’t currently have. I’d
> like to present it to the sub-group for consideration with the
> recommendation we act positively on his recommendation.
>
> This would belong in Stress Test Category Four: Failure of Accountability.
>
> The problem is one some of us believe we’ve encountered with increasing
> frequency at ICANN: staff substituting their policy preferences for the
> policy developed through proper processes. Staff could do this
> intentionally or unintentionally. The result is the same.
>
> In this scenario a policy is properly developed (most often through a PDP)
> but when implementing the policy staff creates processes that effectively
> change or negate the policy developed.
>
> This is a major accountability problem and we don’t seem to be testing to
> ensure we have proper accountability processes in place to deal with it.
> I’d suggest we do so. I’m happy to help with this as needed.
>
> Thanks for considering.
>
>
>  Edward Morris
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ccwg-accountability4/attachments/20150322/ffbac57c/attachment.html>