[CCWG-ACCT] "Staff Accountability" has been assigned to Work Stream 2 since Frankfurt, and there was no decision to remove it by the CCWG
mathieu.weill at afnic.fr
Mon Feb 8 07:40:25 UTC 2016
I do not believe this was an error.
The conversation about narrowing the list of WS2 items took place in Dublin,
focusing on those items most related with the IANA Stewardship transition.
This ended up with the current list, while we agreed that other items, such
as staff accountability, could be addressed through Icann’s existing (and
reinforced) continuous improvement system.
That being said, during our discussions we had identified ideas such as a
Staff-Community interactions code of conduct, which would be immensely
useful to Icann. All it would take to start this would be an agreement
between the Board and the SO/ACs to launch a working group.
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
[mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] De la part de
Envoyé : dimanche 7 février 2016 18:00
À : CCWG-Accountability
Objet : [CCWG-ACCT] "Staff Accountability" has been assigned to Work Stream
2 since Frankfurt, and there was no decision to remove it by the CCWG
Our 3rd draft report contains an error that needs to be corrected in the
final version of the report.
Specifically, paragraph 34 on page 8 of Annex 12, which provides the details
for Rec. 12’s Work Stream 2 work states:
“Public comments revealed that a review of staff accountability should
not be pursued.”
I do not recall any such CCWG conversation or decision to remove "staff
accountability" from WS2, and I’ve been on every call since the public
comment period referenced in the text.
And given recent events and the growing concerns about the CEO’s conflict of
interest with China, I can’t imagine this group would come to such a
conclusion, if a conversation were too happen on the topic.
So unless someone can point to a conversation in the record where the CCWG
did in fact decide to remove staff accountability from WS2 based on public
comments, the issue must go back in to our report where CCWG assigned it,
since its removal appears to be 'accidental’ by the staff-drafters in the
last moments of drafting.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community