[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Sat Jul 18 11:26:20 UTC 2015

Kieren,

You are pointing here to a fundamental question of the complex and multiple
organization's objectives the community is trying to cover.

On Jul 18, 2015 4:45 AM, "Kieren McCarthy" <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com>
wrote:
>
> So you are also of the belief that ICANN is more a corporation ...

I hope it is an effective organization for the purpose of managing the DNS
in a stable, resilient and secure way, which I think is the initial purpose
of the stewardship transition

than a public interest organization, Chris?

>From my perspective the public interest perspective is as valid as the
first one, but it is more relevant to the direct  public interest functions
of policy development and contract compliance, than for the operational
functions.
>
> I think this might be where a lot of the disagreements in general over
accountability are coming from.

Maybe we need more than one standard of Accountability, depending on the
specific function. And I think the specific standard for the assignment of
unique resources should be of the public interest type (I.e. pretty high)
>
> For example, ICANN is set up as a member organization but has no members.
It is based in California but wishes to be an international organization.
>
> I would argue that the very point where ICANN is right now is where it
needs to stop being an American corporation and start being an
internationall public benefit organization.
>
While the operational side requires a fast and efficient business
environment (like California's) you may want to argue that an international
setting may be more convincing to a wider group of stakeholders. But so far
it has not been a high priority to any of the active stakeholders. If not
even GAC asks for it, it seems to be stuff for WS n+1.

> And that means opening up to real accountability rather than keeping
everything in house.
>

The single best Accountability measure I keep hearing from US Congress, is
organizational and/or structural separation of the operation al issues from
the public interest ones (policy and compliance). And did me the best arms
length separation is separate staff and separate budgets.

And I agree with James and Chris that a challenge this size represents a
horrible managerial challenge for any type of organization. But those
challenges never arrive at comfortable peaceful moments anyhow. And maybe
the Board should be looking for 2 CEOs with separate objectives as per
above, instead of a single and conflicted one. And the Boards role would be
to keep those diverging forces aligned.

In any case, it is the CCWG itself the one that is tending  to expand the
scope and the discussion  of  ICANNs mission, instead if sticking to the
narrow technical functions of the CWG......

Have a nice weekend in Paris

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
>
> Kieren
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:41 PM Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you James.
>>
>> Speaking as a real life, actual CEO…I agree.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>> On 18 Jul 2015, at 05:30 , 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20150718/c7f61572/attachment.html>