Sent from Google nexus 4 kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 12 Jul 2015 8:42 am, "Chris Disspain" <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
.
Or, alternatively, stop justifying our calls for greater accountability by making broad brush, non-evidence based claims that place the staff, the board and often various parts of the community in a bad light and instead acknowledge that greater accountability is a good thing and within reasonable boundaries doesn't actually need to be justified by claims of bad acting in the past.
SO: +1 to above, I think what needs to be improved on is that staff/board action/inaction should become less of a surprise to the community as much as possible. This will happen when: - There is clear evidence that the community (including board/staff) are following their processes. - There is strong evidence of engaging the community in board's decision making process. For instance getting community feedback on budget should be a compulsory item in board's budget approval process. (It's not the same as making it subject to community approval) - There is proof that community's recommendations to board are evident in their actions. However this would only be more helpful if the community itself work together to achieve rough consensus on issues. Overall "improving accountability" is a continuous exercise and if everything was perfect then there may be no further progress to be recorded and perhaps no community. Regards
Do you / do participants generally think that would be an appropriate
thing to spend some time on in WS2?
Good question. Don't know.
cheers Jordan
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community