[Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community

Wed Apr 19 02:31:24 UTC 2017

Was there any covering note when this was sent by staff?  It would good to
understand the circumstances in which it was sent.  Depending on those
circumstances, it might be good to acknowledge this and provide some
preliminary responses to indicate how these questions will be explored in
our work.  I tend to doubt that staff wanted the Subgroup to "air dirty
laundry" in response to their questions -- I suspect they wanted to get a
better idea of what we're doing and where we're going.  Obviously, we are
not going to prejudge the work of the group -- this should be viewed as a
piece of the larger discussion with staff on the issues of our group.

One of the issues we have cited as an impediment to our work is the
relative inability to have a constructive dialogue with, and input by,
staff.  It seems to me that responding to this in a constructive, albeit
preliminary, manner would be a step in the right direction.   Not
responding, or responding by saying we added your questions to our issues
list, and we'll get back to you when we're done, with answers, maybe, is
not as positive a step.

Greg

*Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428
S: gsshatan
Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428
gregshatanipc at gmail.com

On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
wrote:

> hi George
>
> To recap: we face a choice about whether to dig into "cases", or whether
> to look at "issues".  The group has agreed to look at issues, validated by
> cases, to avoid dragging past actions of individuals into the discussion.
>
> We can't do it both ways.
>
> Either we can avoid getting into specific cases in public, or not.
>
> If we want to avoid that (and I do, because I don't think it is acceptable
> for this group to behave as some kind of star chamber, looking at past
> actions and sitting in judgement on them), then we have two options:
>
> - look at systemic or broader issues INFORMED by those indiv experiences
> - stop the work
>
> The latter isn't acceptable. So we are proceeding on the most reasonable
> basis available.
>
>
> The work approach, which you were present for the discussion about, is to:
>
> - surface the issues IDd by this v small group with the full CCWG
> - validate or reject the "reality" or importance of the issues based on
> that wider input
> - make sure there are appropriate layers of solutions developed for the
> issues
> - pull the material together and conduct a community-wide consultation on
> the package.
>
> My expectation is that this will leave us with a very small group of
> issues and a very light set of changes recommended to how ICANN
> a) provides a forum for people to raise concerns
> b) shows that its staff accountability processes take account of community
> feedback
>
> I haven't seen any evidence so far that warrants a more intrusive outcome,
> but I do not want to jump the gun. We *have* to give the wider group the
> opportunity to register the issues they have experienced. Or, to show that
> there aren't any issues. I'm keeping an open mind on that.
>
> In doing that work of seeking input, we will then be in a position to
> respond to the staff's request for detail and evidence. Or, to point them
> in the direction to get it. Or, to respond that in our view it isn't
> appropriate for us to do so.
>
> If ICANN as an organisation would like to take a different approach that
> digs into specific cases, or solicits evidence of those from the community
> for resolution or assessment, it is welcome to.  That's not what our group
> is mandated to do.
>
>
> A final point on timing. Yes, this group is running slower than planned.
> We've had to adjust our work method to reflect the reality of volunteer
> time and commitment, late criticism from you as a Board member (which
> however valid, was still very late), and doing a proper job. There is no
> way to change where we are at now.
>
> I'd request that you focus on what we do next, and how we bring this to a
> conclusion, if you can.
>
>
> best
> Jordan
>
> On 19 April 2017 at 05:39, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Avri,
>>
>> I don't mean to be difficult, but it seems to me that the questions from
>> staff are asking for concrete evidence regarding the existence and
>> seriousness of issues.
>>
>> If you're saying that the group cannot answer staff's questions because
>> it doesn't have any evidence with which to respond, I can understand that.
>> However, then adding it to the issues list is really mixing apples and
>> oranges; the staff questions are asking for evidence, not specifying
>> issues.  It implies that the group really needs to spend time collecting
>> evidence to decide whether the issues on the issues list are real issues or
>> whether they should be discarded as non-issues.  It also implies that the
>> work of the group is lagging substantially if it hasn't decided yet what
>> are the real issues to be discussed with a view toward specific remedies
>> for amelioration.
>>
>> I sense a tendency on the part of the group to avoid specifics and hard
>> evidence, when this is precisely what you need to characterize the issues
>> and verify that they are real.  I think that at some point you have to bite
>> the bullet and get into specifics.
>>
>> Disabuse me of this, please.
>>
>> George
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:26 PM, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > As was mentioned on the call, their questions are being folded into the
>> > issues list.
>> >
>> > The issues list is meant to collect "real problems that exist".
>> >
>> > It you think that there is an issue contained in the staff questions
>> > that does not figure out in the issues lists, please point it out, and
>> > better yet, add it to the issues list.
>> >
>> > At the end of the issues list resolution discussion and solution
>> > finding, we can then perhaps answer their questions.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> > avri
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 18-Apr-17 11:32, George Sadowsky wrote:
>> >> Avri and Jordan,
>> >>
>> >> I ask this out of ignorance.
>> >>
>> >> Has there been a response from the working group to the questions that
>> the staff addressed to the group (attached)?  If not, does it make sense to
>> prepare such a response in order to sharpen the focus on real problems that
>> exist?
>> >>
>> >> George
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
>> >> Ws2-staff_acct at icann.org
>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
>> >
>> >
>> > ---
>> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
>> > Ws2-staff_acct at icann.org
>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jordan Carter
>
> Chief Executive
> *InternetNZ *
>
> +64-4-495-2118 <+64%204-495%202118> (office) | +64-21-442-649
> <+64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) | Skype: jordancarter
> jordan at InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz
>
> *A better world through a better Internet*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ws2-staff_acct mailing list
> Ws2-staff_acct at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ws2-staff_acct/attachments/20170418/43577db0/attachment.html>