[Ws2-staff_acct] Fwd: Would you please distribute this to the working group for input tomorrow?

[avri doria]

As requested

Also put in a drive file:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/19VVGMuEUBWkmhqHS5nlguLcj1FyMAHfFywkJMj4SJ_c/edit?usp=sharing

Avri

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: 	Would you please distribute this to the working group for
input tomorrow?
Date: 	Tue, 1 Aug 2017 19:30:54 -0400
From: 	George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky at gmail.com>
To: 	avri <avri at acm.org>
CC: 	MAEMURA Akinori <akinori.maemura at board.icann.org>, Swinehart
Theresa <theresa.swinehart at icann.org>



 
_ __Initial inputs on issues articulated in the CCWG-Accountability’s
draft recommendations regarding Staff Accountability._
 
 
Some board members that participate in the WS2 Accountability Board
Caucus group discussed the current version of the draft document and
agreed on this additional feedback on the staff accountability
recommendations in their current form. Please note this isn’t a board
action: instead these are inputs agreed by some participants to continue
engagement in the work of the subgroup. 
 
As shared during the ICANN59 face-to-face CCWG-Accountability meeting, a
general observation is that some of the issues have limited supporting
examples. Because of this, it is very difficult to assess what
specifically are the issues the subgroup is trying to solve, and whether
the issues are systemic. Without that understanding it is difficult to
share in the subgroup’s conclusions that all of the issues outlined in
the report are of a systemic nature or represent a demonstrated pattern
of behavior, versus isolated or more sporadic occurrences. Similarly, it
is difficult to determine whether the recommendations are designed to
solve those issues. 
 
As also shared during the face-to-face meeting, here are some
observations in relation to the issues section:

  * Issue 1, clarity on the issue of a “safe zone”, is needed including
    in the context of 1(a) whether the newly-established Complaints
    Office <https://www.icann.org/complaints-office> serves this
    role. In relation to 1(b), staff reporting of concerns is an
    internal HR-related matter.  However, there is an important issue
    here for the community in relation to community (including SO/AC)
    accountability. Input is welcome on how ICANN can coordinate with
    the community to make sure that misbehavior towards staff is
    identified and treated appropriately within the community. 

 

  * Issue 3, “[T]he overall culture of the ICANN Organization is less
    focused on supporting the community’s work … than it should be,”
    clarification of specific examples would be helpful to determine
    whether these are isolated cases or systemic.  

 

  * Issue 4, which states there is “no institutionalized route for
    community feedback to be included in staff performance and
    accountability systems,” feedback related to the Organization’s
    accountability should go to the organization, and the Complaints
    Office is the most appropriate mechanism through which these
    concerns can be expressed. This issue is an example of an issue
    posed without explanation of what is trying to be solved for. 

 

  * Issue 5, which states “[s]taff may not be consistently meeting
    ICANN’s accountability commitments in a way they summarize and
    substantively respond to recommendations…,” it is unclear what this
    means and clarification and specific examples are needed.
    Clarification is needed whether the subgroup is implying, for
    example, that staff are misrepresenting facts or manipulating
    responses. 

 

  * Issue 6, which states “[t]here are concerns about the compensation
    scheme…”: Departmental or individual goals are not tied to any
    specific policy outcome or the timing of reaching any conclusion of
    process.  Further, departmental or individual goals are aligned with
    ICANN’s mission, goals or objectives. Concerns that a decision taken
    by the Organization staff member may be based on a conflicting
    incentive should be brought to their manager or the Complaints Office.

 

  * Issue 8, it is unclear whether this is staff accountability or
    whether it is requesting a different process for the organization
    when there are these types of requests. Clarification would be
    helpful here as to the context of the issue. 

 
If the subgroup has ideas of how more specificity can be developed and
further conversations needed with parts of the ICANN organization or the
Board, please let us know. 
 
Regards,
 
George Sadowsky, Board Liaison to the Staff Accountability subgroup
Akinori Maemura, Board Liaison to the Staff Accountability subgroup 
 
 

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus