|
Again, That whistleblower process is internal, not external, the company is involved directly in the decision process you described.
And remember, what you described is the Industry standard across high risk companies that are not multistakeholder and with different responsibilities. Spending time developing my proposed external process is in fact fulfilling a solution to stated US Government NTIA post-transition security mandates as stated by the NTIA's requirments to their accepting the transition. Basically, They want to know if ICANN is going to have the processes in place for this sort of thing, and its usually the first question Congress asks. "What about foreign governments, is the process secure?". The US Government will never approve the transition without knowing ICANN has every tool necessary to prevent foreign government pressure, and it should be a top issue, with an external whistleblower process officially drafted asap, or at least have the idea proposed in some facet. Ron |
|
While I won’t comment on the internal side of things I just want to note that an external compliance/whistleblower/reporting hotline which runs through a questionnaire and then gives the report back to the company is pretty industry standard and considered
best practise across high risk industries.
Whats important is what happens once the report is given over to the company.
But given the work that we have ahead of us on fundamental issues I worry that spending cycles on such a small targeted issue might be time better spent on other matters, just my 2c.
-jg
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Kieren
McCarthy
Date: Wednesday 7 October 2015 at 5:27 p.m. To: Nigel Roberts, "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Special Community Leaders CAll - 6 October - Shared Materials The current whistleblower process is far worse than that.
For one, the entire process is a hotline to a company that reports directly back to ICANN. That company receives a complaint and then takes it straight to ICANN and asks ICANN for what to do next. This is not hearsay, it is what happened to one person that actually used the process (and it wasn't me). The company's first question was to ask what their name was. They asked that I'd they gave it, would it be given to ICANN. The answer was yes. The individual heard nothing about their complaint for a while. Then the company got back: ICANN had decided not to progress with it, so it was considered closed. In other words, the whistleblower program is a complete fraud completely determined and run by ICANN's legal team. ICANN refuses to provides any details of this program (and no wonder) and that even extends to basic stats. The only other person that I know used the program was fired shortly afterwards. I understand they gave their name to the company believing it would be confidential. When ICANN was quizzed on the program, it had the audacity to argue that the low level of use of the whistleblower program showed that there weren't any concerns internally. It's doesn't take a genius to realize that keeping your mouth shut is preferable to being fired and having the issue you were complaining about brushed under the carpet. Kieren On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:21 AM Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
What's the point of a whistleblowing process if there's no one with a |