[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability
Kieren McCarthy
kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
Fri Jul 17 23:24:23 UTC 2015
> Again I don't think the community should be in the line of interrogating
staff for the purpose of
> making them more accountable. It's the job of the President and the board.
And when we see the President and/or Board hold a public meeting in which
they ask these questions, or produce a post-mortem report, or provide the
relevant materials, or in fact produce anything other than long tracts of
carefully vetted "whereas" legalese, then you might have a point.
But it hasn't happened yet. And it's been 17 years now...
Kieren
On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maybe one of the IRP improvements (and I must confess I have not read
> about IRP processes in details) could be to ensure that parties affected is
> carried along during all their hearings so if something is wrongly
> presented at the end, they should become the whistle blower based on facts.
>
> For instance in the case of .Africa the parties concerned should be
> carried along so they are aware of sections that were determined to be
> redacted, and if redacted beyond what was agreed they would also know.
>
> If the community then see need to weigh in then, that community could send
> in something similar to below to the board:
>
> "Party A indicated that staff B carried of actions123 instead of action456
> that was agreed, party A has already followed xyz process and the CEO does
> not seem to have addressed the issue, can you look into resolving/providing
> solution "
>
> Again I don't think the community should be in the line of interrogating
> staff for the purpose of making them more accountable. It's the job of the
> President and the board.
>
> Regards
> Sent from Google nexus 4
> kindly excuse brevity and typos.
> On 17 Jul 2015 11:27 pm, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
> wrote:
>
>> How on earth is asking people questions about what they did "punitive"?
>>
>> There is such a strange tendency in this community to think of the worst
>> possible scenario and then take that as a basepoint on which to make
>> decisions.
>>
>> Three scenarios: one in which someone did their job well and properly;
>> one in which they make a mistake; one in which they knowingly did wrong.
>>
>> Let's take the .Africa example: someone redacted information that someone
>> else on staff had assisted the other applicant.
>>
>> Two people worth talking to: the person that took the decision to redact
>> the information; and the person who wrote and/or authorized the letter to
>> the AUC for the other applicant.
>>
>> At the moment, we have little real idea what happened. And I don't think
>> anyone here is naive enough to believe that ICANN will give an honest
>> rundown of what happened either.
>>
>> So, the person that wrote the letter.
>>
>> It's easy to see how they could be reprimanded or even fired. But let's
>> assume that they didn't think the letter was a good idea. Let's assume they
>> actually wrote emails saying they didn't agree with this course of action.
>> But they were then ordered to assist by someone higher up in the chain of
>> command. But because it has come out, they get the blame when in fact they
>> were doing their job well and actually identified the very problem that
>> ICANN was subsequently criticized for.
>>
>> We want this person at ICANN. And this person would actively *want* to
>> talk to people outside the organization, so they can show they are
>> professional, recognized the issue, and followed the appropriate actions.
>>
>> Take the person who redacted the information. Perhaps they did it because
>> they were told to by their boss. Perhaps they did it because they thought
>> it was the right thing to do. Perhaps they did it because they were the
>> same person who told the first person that they should write the letter,
>> even after they had expressed their strong reservations. Perhaps they just
>> made a mistake and feel very embarrassed about the whole thing.
>>
>> If this person has not done anything wrong, then they also would want to
>> explain their actions, especially if they felt that having an external
>> party asking them questions meant that they could be more truthful than if
>> another staffer or Board member asked them.
>>
>> Now take the worst case scenarios: the person writing the letter knew
>> they shouldn't have done it, knew they were breaking the bylaws but didn't
>> care because it was easier for them and didn't think they'd ever be found
>> out.
>>
>> Or: the person that redacted the information also knew it was wrong but
>> figured that no one would be able to get the unredacted copy anyway, and
>> the Board wouldn't ask any hard questions, so no one will ever know.
>>
>> All of these scenarios are possible.
>>
>> In the positive scenarios, professionals get to explain their actions. If
>> they did an excellent professional job, they raise their stature in the job
>> and the community.
>>
>> If they made a mistake, they get to say 'I made a mistake', and learn a
>> valuable lesson.
>>
>> In the scenarios where people knowingly did wrong and tried to hide their
>> misdeeds, it would become obvious pretty quickly. This would enable the
>> organization to see what went wrong and so fix processes so it doesn't
>> happen in future. And it would put that person on notice that they can't
>> expect to get away with that sort of behavior.
>>
>> This whole process is what is called "accountability".
>>
>>
>> Without that accountability, a culture can go wrong very quickly. And I
>> would argue that it has and we keep seeing the manifestations of that.
>>
>> By the way, I would like to remind people that I was on staff for three
>> years and still have a number of good friends at ICANN so I am working from
>> real knowledge of ICANN and its internal workings.
>>
>> I was also the staff support on two different accountability reviews -
>> OneWorldTrust and Improving Institutional Confidence.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kieren
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 2:00 PM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I do not, at least not in particular. Which is why I think we need to
>>> focus on actions, not actors. I agree wholeheartedly that most of the
>>> staff I have worked with are great, and hard-working and dedicated to
>>> boot. And as you say, if an action was found to be an improper exercise of
>>> staff power, it should be seen first as an educational opportunity, not as
>>> a punitive opportunity.
>>>
>>> Focusing on actions also distances this further from "personnel" type
>>> cases.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I do not know about you or others, but i have no particular staff member
>>>> in mind. Most of the ones I know are mostly pretty great most of the
>>>> time. If someone made errors in this case, then it provides a good
>>>> learning opportunity.
>>>>
>>>> Though I believe actions and actors are fairly tied together, and
>>>> actions only improve when actors are better trained and supported and
>>>> rewarded for the right stuff.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17-Jul-15 22:29, Greg Shatan wrote:
>>>> > 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
>>>> > <mailto: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>
>>>> > > <mailto: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>
>>>> > > <mailto: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
>>>> > <mailto: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
>>>> > <mailto: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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20150717/4e7457f5/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list