<div dir="ltr">Something that may be useful in your discussions about staff accountability.<div><br></div><div>I have been digging into the unusual decision of ICANN's staff to redact the final report of the IRP into the .Africa case.</div><div><br></div><div>This morning, I posted a second article on it in which highlights that staff not only directly intervened in the process but then went to some lengths to hide that fact. The response as to why it had done so was also highly misleading.</div><div><br></div><div>More: <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/icann_dot_africa">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/24/icann_dot_africa</a></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The key aspects in terms of accountability that concern me are:</div><div><br></div><div>* ICANN staff appeared to have consciously tried to avoid leaving a paper trail of their interventions in what was supposed to be an independent evaluation</div><div><br></div><div>* There are multiple layers of opaqueness built into the system designed to ensure that staff's actions are never revealed - a significant one being the independent evaluators are themselves under a confidentiality agreement with ICANN the corporation (as opposed to the wider organization)</div><div><br></div><div>* When some details of staff actions did make it out through the final IRP report, ICANN immediately sought to cover them up by redacting the report - something it did despite the prevailing party specifically objecting</div><div><br></div><div>* ICANN staff is not afraid to use its unaccountability as a way to pressure people into not revealing its wrongdoing. So in the .Africa case for example, ICANN told DCA that it should not publish an unredacted version of the final report without its approval: DCA of course is completely reliant on ICANN to act on the report and to re-evaluate its application</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>What also concerns me in that in many of these discussions, people have put forward the argument that the ICANN Board should be mainly responsible for looking into staff actions.</div><div><br></div><div>In this case in particular, despite staff action being highlighted as unfair and discriminatory, and despite the staff then giving a misleading account of its own actions, the Board has just to even suggest it may look into events. In fact, I can't recall any occasion on which the ICANN Board has decided to carry out its own investigation.</div><div><br></div><div>Plus of course in this case, the IRP found that the Board itself was also culpable of not acting fairly or neutrally. </div><div><br></div><div>Just some things to bear in mind when deciding on the *limits* on staff accountability that will inevitably form a part of the conversation.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Kieren</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 11:07 AM, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:leonfelipe@sanchez.mx" target="_blank">leonfelipe@sanchez.mx</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">Thanks Mathieu,<div><br></div><div>I have edited the documento to accept your changes. I have also removed paragraph b) in the previous document as you are right and I have confirmed with Becky the the IRP is already applicable to Staff action or inaction.</div><div><br></div><div>Attached the final version.</div><div><br></div><div><br><div>
<div>Best regards,</div><div></div></div></div></div><br><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div><div><div></div><div><br></div><div>León</div>
</div>
<br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>El 24/07/2015, a las 3:41, Mathieu Weill <<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>> escribió:</div><br><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hi all,<br>
<br>
Regarding staff accountability this time :<br>
<br>
<br>
A couple of wording changes to facilitate insertion into the public
comment report. <br>
<br>
I had the impression that IRP would already apply to Staff
decisions, so maybe we should review that part of the recommendation
?<br>
<br>
Mathieu<br>
<br>
<div>Le 24/07/2015 06:51, León Felipe
Sánchez Ambía a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre>Dear all,
With apologies for the delay, attached you will find what I believe are the final versions of the three documents we’ve discussed.
Please let me know if I missed anything or if I misrepresented our discussion.
Best regards,
León
</pre>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
wp3 mailing list
<a href="mailto:wp3@icann.org" target="_blank">wp3@icann.org</a>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
*****************************
Mathieu WEILL
AFNIC - directeur général
Tél: <a href="tel:%2B33%201%2039%2030%2083%2006" value="+33139308306" target="_blank">+33 1 39 30 83 06</a>
<a href="mailto:mathieu.weill@afnic.fr" target="_blank">mathieu.weill@afnic.fr</a>
Twitter : @mathieuweill
*****************************
</pre>
</div>
<span><StaffAccountability_Final-MW.docx></span></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
wp3 mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:wp3@icann.org">wp3@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/wp3</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>