[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Chris Disspain ceo at auda.org.au
Sat Jul 18 12:04:56 UTC 2015


Kieren,

No offence, but I don’t think it is appropriate in this process for me to answer questions from journalists.


Cheers,

Chris

> On 18 Jul 2015, at 20:43 , Kieren McCarthy <kieren at kierenmccarthy.com> wrote:
> 
> So you are also of the belief that ICANN is more a corporation than a public interest organization, Chris?
> 
> I think this might be where a lot of the disagreements in general over accountability are coming from.
> 
> 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.
> 
> And that means opening up to real accountability rather than keeping everything in house.
> 
> 
> Kieren
> 
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 11:41 PM Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> How about an independent inspector general?
>>>>> 
>>>>>  
>>>> [...]
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <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/20150718/3178354c/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list