"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. Robin
While i am not opposed to such inclusion, community review of staff is a path I hope will be threaded carefully especially if it exceeds key performance indicators. That should always be the role of board and I don't think it's one of those things that the community should tell the board "how to do" by hardcoding it in the bylaw. Cheers! On 7 Feb 2016 6:00 p.m., "Robin Gross" <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Sean I really don't care whether we decide to include it or not, so long as this is decided in the CCWG, by consensus. But what I care about is whether there has been a misrepresentation, and if so, by whom. When was it decided to remove this from the accountability framework, please??
I share this concern. First, there is no point in this process where we should rely solely on what public comments "reveal." We should fully consider public comments, but we are not here merely to receive revelations. We need to exercise judgment. Fortunately, this was an instance where judgment should have been relatively easy. Unfortunately, the Third Draft Report nonetheless gets it wrong. A review of the public comments to the Second Draft reveals no support for the statement “Public comments revealed that a review of staff accountability should not be pursued.” According the public comment analysis tool, only 9 comments (out of 94) directly addressed staff accountability. All 9 of these comments were deemed to support the overall recommendation. Four of the comments did note issues with aspects of the recommendation, but none of the comments opposed the recommendation outright. 90% of the comments did not even find our second draft recommendation on staff accountability worthy of comment, and all those that did supported the comment, completely or in large part. This provides nothing but support for pursuing staff accountability in Work Stream 2, not the opposite. The statement in our Third Draft Report is a clear error, which must be corrected. This is a big project, and mistakes can happen. Fortunately, this one was caught in time, and we need to make it right. We need to restore the recommendations from the Second Draft report, tweak them as we deem necessary, and put staff accountability squarely in the hands of Work Stream 2. Greg On Sun, Feb 7, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Sean
I really don't care whether we decide to include it or not, so long as this is decided in the CCWG, by consensus.
But what I care about is whether there has been a misrepresentation, and if so, by whom.
When was it decided to remove this from the accountability framework, please??
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I think if you are intending to use them to highlight that the word is intended to be used ironically or sardonically, then you should use double-quotes around 'accidental'. Although I accept that US and British editors' style guides differ dramatically on this. More importantly, and less jocularly, this does not appear to be an oversight or omission since there is this affirmative statement that you quote:
“Public comments revealed that a review of staff accountability should not be pursued.”
Where is the authority for this claim? And whence did it arise, please?
Dear Robin, 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. Best, Mathieu De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Robin Gross 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. Robin
Dear Mathieu Thank you for yr precise analysis of situation which reflected the discussions held from Dublin till now Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2016, at 08:40, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best, Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Robin Gross 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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Mathieu, In that case, the statement in the Third Draft Proposal is still incorrect and needs to be changed. As you describe it, the decision to drop staff accountability (which I don't recall) had other origins and was not "revealed" by the public comments. Greg On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Kavouss Arasteh <kavouss.arasteh@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mathieu Thank you for yr precise analysis of situation which reflected the discussions held from Dublin till now Regards Kavouss
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2016, at 08:40, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best,
Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] *De la part de* Robin Gross *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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ 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
Dear Mathieu, Thanks, but I do believe this was an error that needs to be corrected. I participated in all the Dublin CCWG discussions and have no recollection of the CCWG “deciding" not to pursue staff accountability in WorkStream 2 and to remove it from our work plan. But not wanting to trust only my memory, I went back and reviewed all the agendas, notes, and other records from the CCWG meetings in Dublin, and indeed there is no mention of this “decision" to cancel our earlier work of assigning staff accountability to WorkStream 2. So unless someone can point to a recorded decision by the CCWG not to pursue staff accountability from Work Stream 2, the issue must go back in, as it was improperly removed in the first place. Best, Robin
On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best, Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>] De la part de Robin Gross 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.
Robin
My memory is usually pretty good and agrees with Robin's. I don't recall any decision to remove staff accountability from our work plan and, as recent events demonstrate, think it's an essential part of our overall accountability effort. Just as we hope to create an improved Whistleblower program in WS2 and give staff access to the Ombudsman, which they do not have now, we do need to have mechanisms to ensure that this protected staff acts in accordance with community direction. A rouge staff could cause as many problems for our governance model as a rouge Board. Certainly something to be looked at in WS2. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2016, at 09:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Mathieu,
Thanks, but I do believe this was an error that needs to be corrected. I participated in all the Dublin CCWG discussions and have no recollection of the CCWG “deciding" not to pursue staff accountability in WorkStream 2 and to remove it from our work plan. But not wanting to trust only my memory, I went back and reviewed all the agendas, notes, and other records from the CCWG meetings in Dublin, and indeed there is no mention of this “decision" to cancel our earlier work of assigning staff accountability to WorkStream 2.
So unless someone can point to a recorded decision by the CCWG not to pursue staff accountability from Work Stream 2, the issue must go back in, as it was improperly removed in the first place.
Best, Robin
On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best, Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Robin Gross 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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2016, at 09:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org> wrote:
Dear Mathieu,
Thanks, but I do believe this was an error that needs to be corrected. I participated in all the Dublin CCWG discussions and have no recollection of the CCWG “deciding" not to pursue staff accountability in WorkStream 2 and to remove it from our work plan. But not wanting to trust only my memory, I went back and reviewed all the agendas, notes, and other records from the CCWG meetings in Dublin, and indeed there is no mention of this “decision" to cancel our earlier work of assigning staff accountability to WorkStream 2.
So unless someone can point to a recorded decision by the CCWG not to pursue staff accountability from Work Stream 2, the issue must go back in, as it was improperly removed in the first place.
Best, Robin
On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best, Mathieu
De : accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] De la part de Robin Gross 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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Hi, I also do not remember it. And when I saw it thought it was a typo (misplaced 'not') but forgot to mention it to anyone. Grateful to Robin for bringing it up. But my attention does wander on occasion so I may have missed it. It should be findable in the transcripts. Is there any way easily to search all of the transcripts? avri On 08-Feb-16 10:03, Edward Morris wrote:
My memory is usually pretty good and agrees with Robin's. I don't recall any decision to remove staff accountability from our work plan and, as recent events demonstrate, think it's an essential part of our overall accountability effort. Just as we hope to create an improved Whistleblower program in WS2 and give staff access to the Ombudsman, which they do not have now, we do need to have mechanisms to ensure that this protected staff acts in accordance with community direction. A rouge staff could cause as many problems for our governance model as a rouge Board. Certainly something to be looked at in WS2.
Best,
Ed Morris
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2016, at 09:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Mathieu,
Thanks, but I do believe this was an error that needs to be corrected. I participated in all the Dublin CCWG discussions and have no recollection of the CCWG “deciding" not to pursue staff accountability in WorkStream 2 and to remove it from our work plan. But not wanting to trust only my memory, I went back and reviewed all the agendas, notes, and other records from the CCWG meetings in Dublin, and indeed there is no mention of this “decision" to cancel our earlier work of assigning staff accountability to WorkStream 2.
So unless someone can point to a recorded decision by the CCWG not to pursue staff accountability from Work Stream 2, the issue must go back in, as it was improperly removed in the first place.
Best, Robin
On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best, Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Robin Gross *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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Feb 2016, at 09:33, Robin Gross <robin@ipjustice.org <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>> wrote:
Dear Mathieu,
Thanks, but I do believe this was an error that needs to be corrected. I participated in all the Dublin CCWG discussions and have no recollection of the CCWG “deciding" not to pursue staff accountability in WorkStream 2 and to remove it from our work plan. But not wanting to trust only my memory, I went back and reviewed all the agendas, notes, and other records from the CCWG meetings in Dublin, and indeed there is no mention of this “decision" to cancel our earlier work of assigning staff accountability to WorkStream 2.
So unless someone can point to a recorded decision by the CCWG not to pursue staff accountability from Work Stream 2, the issue must go back in, as it was improperly removed in the first place.
Best, Robin
On Feb 7, 2016, at 11:40 PM, Mathieu Weill <Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr <mailto:Mathieu.Weill@afnic.fr>> wrote:
Dear Robin,
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.
Best, Mathieu
*De :* accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] *De la part de* Robin Gross *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.
Robin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto: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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
participants (8)
-
Avri Doria -
Edward Morris -
Greg Shatan -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mathieu Weill -
Nigel Roberts -
Robin Gross -
Seun Ojedeji