[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Fri Jul 17 22:10:54 UTC 2015

Hi,

I am personally not opposed to asking question but rather opposed to who
you are suggesting the questions be directed to.

The community's first/only level of formal questioning is/should be within
the board; so board members including the CEO can be asked to either
provide explanation or ensure compliance/redress of any staff action it
should not be the "volunteer" community doing that job.

This is usually the practice, even in a member based organisation. I am
open to hear example of organisations practicing what you've suggested.

Regards
Sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 17 Jul 2015 9:11 pm, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:

> I'm at a real loss to understand why people are opposed to this idea,
> especially since I typically agree with both James and David.
>
> My best guess is that you see ICANN as more of a corporation, and I see it
> more as a public interest organization.
>
> This approach of external accountability by having informed people ask
> questions directly on a specific topic to the people that make the
> decisions is extremely common. In fact it is a bedrock of the democracies
> that most of us live in.
>
> And it has a long history of being effective, particularly where there is
> no competition (ICANN is a natural monopoly) and when the organization in
> question has a significant degree of power (ICANN gets to decide and that's
> that).
>
> ICANN is hiring people - and paying them handsomely - to act in the
> internet community's interests. I can't for the life of me understand why
> obliging them to answer questions on specific topics that they are paid to
> carry out in the interests of the internet community is a bad thing.
>
> Plus, it happens all the time now. Staff are constantly attending
> different sessions and answering questions. Its part of the job. The
> difference is: if ICANN corporate doesn't *want* to tell you something then
> it doesn't, and no one can make it either. That is the core accountability
> problem.
>
> When we have a situation - as we have with this recent .Africa decision -
> where both the Board and staff are found to have broken ICANN's bylaws -
> what next? We simply say "don't do that again"?
>
> That approach is why there have been no less than seven formal reviews in
> the past 10 years. And despite all the processes and mechanisms put in
> place, there remains a huge problem and gap.
>
> There is no actual way to hold the people that make the decisions (the
> Board) and implement the changes (the staff) accountable for what they do.
>
> When everything goes smoothly it's not a problem; when it doesn't, ICANN
> corporate has learned it can simply brush it under the carpet. But of
> course every time that happens, there is someone in the community that
> feels aggrieved.
>
> And when that is done again and again, almost reflexively on ICANN's part,
> it erodes trust. And that is why there is such little trust in ICANN
> corporate. What am I proposing is a way to end that vicious circle but
> doing what? Asking a few questions.
>
>
>
> Kieren
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 12:30 PM, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> wrote:
>
>>   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.
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>  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.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>  J.
>> ____________
>> James Bladel
>> GoDaddy
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2015, at 20:39, Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
>> 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.
>>
>>  > 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?
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>
>>  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.
>>
>>  And those people are... the 2,000 people that turn up to ICANN
>> meetings. The community.
>>
>>
>>
>>  Kieren
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 10:06 PM, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Eberhard has a point.
>>>
>>>  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.
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>  Regards
>>> David
>>>
>>>  (my first post to CCWG Accountability - hi everybody)
>>>
>>>    On 16 Jul 2015, at 2:03 pm, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Cool, another Ombudsman.
>>>
>>>  el
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 16, 2015, at 04:05, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>   How about an independent inspector general?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>    _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/ab324b1c/attachment.html>