[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

Kieren McCarthy kieren at kierenmccarthy.com
Sat Jul 18 13:15:21 UTC 2015


I'm not asking for special treatment, I know it's Board policy not to be
accountable to anyone but itself. But I did think it might be a useful
discussion.


Kieren

On Sat, Jul 18, 2015 at 5:04 AM Chris Disspain <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:

> 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> 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
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150718/5c4637ff/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list