[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jul 17 20:29:32 UTC 2015 

I think we are fixated too much in this discussion on going after a
particular staff member.  The focus should be on "staff actions," as a
class of actions, not on "actions of staff members," as a class of actors.

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:22 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> And what I am saying is that it isn't a mistake, just a job not yet
> completed.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 17-Jul-15 22:15, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> > What I am saying Avri is that we should not keep making the same
> > mistake over and over again.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kieren
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> > <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     Hi,
> >
> >     On 17-Jul-15 20:38, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
> >     > > some personnel issues should remain confidential,
> >     >
> >     > 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.
> >
> >     True.
> >
> >     >
> >     > > Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good fit for this
> >     role?
> >     >
> >     > I'll give you three good reasons:
> >     >
> >     > 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?
> >
> >     Previous failure is not a mistake.
> >     I believe we can succeed at doing this.
> >
> >     And the Ombudsman can get access to any information.  It is uncertain
> >     how much he can do with it at this point, but at least someone who is
> >     trusted can look and can give testimony about the validity of
> >     redactions.
> >
> >     Sure I would like to see ICANN live of to ATRT obligations,  take
> >     on CSR
> >     seriously, have reasonable RR and stronger independent reviews and
> >     audits &c., but we should not give up the partial successes
> >     because they
> >     are not right yet.  WS2 will focus on strengthening the ombudsman
> role
> >     and I think we can do it.
> >
> >     >
> >     > 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.
> >
> >     Ombudsman in general are paid for by the company they work for.  And
> >     they often still have strong independence.  Some even have power
> >     to fix
> >     things.  We should fix the aspects of the ombudsman support that
> >     need to
> >     be fixed, we should not give up.
> >
> >     See response to point 1.
> >
> >     >
> >     > 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.
> >     >
> >
> >     Actually we have an Ombudsman's office with 2 people in it.
> >
> >     It either needs to be fixed or we need to walk away from ICANN.
> >     Some of
> >     us have done so and are probably making a good living picking on
> >     ICANN,
> >     and some of us are thinking of walking away just to make a living
> >     (volunteering is a difficult vocation).  But those who do stay
> >     need  to
> >     keep trying to fix it for as long as they do stay.  And new people
> >     come
> >     to the effort all the time, determined to succeed where we fail.
> >
> >     For anyone who says ICANN never improves, I ask them to think back
> >     to a
> >     decade ago and compare.  Problems there still are, but it is nowhere
> >     near as bad as it once was. Could be a lot better, but also could be
> a
> >     lot worse.
> >
> >     >
> >     > 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.
> >
> >     True they are necessary.  But they are only one part of the
> >     story.  They
> >     need internal allies.
> >     And it is my impression that though not as effective as he could have
> >     been due to conditions you describe, the ombudsman has helped in many
> >     cases.  And does as much as possible to support the people who
> >     need help.
> >
> >     > And those people are... the 2,000 people that turn up to ICANN
> >     > meetings. The community.
> >
> >     Actually aren't most of them there to wheel and deal?
> >     Only hundreds go to meetings dedicated to doing the policy stuff.
> >
> >     And they need the support of a strong ombudsman office.
> >     and a CSR officer, and ...
> >
> >     That is what this process is all about.
> >
> >     avri
> >
> >
> >     ---
> >     This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >     https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >
> >     _______________________________________________
> >     Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> >     Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> >     <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
> >     https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> > Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/ca55d419/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list