[CCWG-ACCT] Board comments on Rec 10
farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Tue Feb 2 07:37:55 UTC 2016
> Hello Chris
> On 28 Jan 2016 20:33, "Chris Disspain" <ceo at auda.org.au> wrote:
> > All,
> > Here are the current Board comments on Recommendation 10 (SO/AC
> > The Board continues to support this recommendation, and the importance
> of a focus on SO/AC accountability in light of the community empowerment
> recommended by the CCWG. The Mutual Accountability roundtable is a welcome
> > The Bylaws-mandated independent structural review of various ICANN
> bodies, known as Organizational Reviews, will continue to have an important
> role in assessing SO/AC Accountability. The Board has strong concerns
> surrounding the details In Recommendation 10 on these reviews, particularly
> in how the recommendations might not uphold the import of independence as
> the key facet of that work. Reviews are a mechanism to hold ICANN
> accountable and transparent, but also a means of inspiring a culture of
> continuous improvement. Independence and objectivity are essential
> ingredients of effective performance assessment.
> > a) On the proposal that independent reviews should be commenced at
> the request of a majority of the SO/ACs rather than by the Board - the
> current process is instrumental in ensuring accountability: a regular,
> predictable review cycle that is not left to the discretion of the group to
> be reviewed is necessary to maintain accountability. The initiation of
> these reviews should be on a predictable cycle, and the proposal on the
> table leaves the possibility that a review might never commence.
> It should not be left to the discretion of the group but not to the
> discretion of the board either. Board can use this mechanism later on
> against the community if it is in the danger of being held accountable! By
> "that a review might never commence" you mean that it is too difficult to
> hold the community accountable vis a vis their community! Isn't it too
> difficult to commence the process for holding the Board accountable either
> The problem with current proposal is using the Independent Periodical
> Review laid out in Article IV(4) to hold the community accountable. This
> does not work considering the plans for establishing mechanisms for
> empowering the community. We need a separate and revised review process.
> > b) The CCWG draft document also suggests that recommendations should
> be approved only by the SOs/ACs acting through the community forum. This
> removes the Board’s role in approval of recommendations, and could
> undermine the independence and accountability implicit in the current
> process. While there could be a mechanism to better involve the voice of
> the group under review, the Board plays an important role to preserve the
> independence of reviews and ensure that the group under review remains
> What if that group is the one invoking the accountability mechanism to
> hold the board accountable and then the board just starts its review to
> stop that group? or even stop more groups!
> > c) The CCWG also suggests that the reviews should happen in two
> phases – a self-assessment by the group under review, and then the
> independent examination after that self-assessment is completed.
> Self-assessments by the group under review serve as an important and
> valuable input into the independent examiner’s work. The self-assessment,
> however, cannot be the sole focus of the independent examiner’s work. It
> is essential the independent examiner reach his/her own conclusions to
> preserve objectivity, impartiality and independence – qualities essential
> to an effective review process.
> Does Board have any comment on GAC not being to subject to these reviews?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community