Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Statement of accountability scope and limitations; fact based evidence
Trying to pick up a few points in an effort to be constructive: On 12 July 2015 at 19:41, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello Jordan,
See in line below.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 12 Jul 2015, at 14:17, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all, hi Chris:
On 12 July 2015 at 15:54, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hi Jordan,
On ATRT, please see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt2-recommendation-implementat... and let me know the 'strange cases' to which you refer.
Probably the implementation timetable. The report was submitted in December 2013. It is July 2015. There seem to be ticks in the boxes marking complete for roughly half the components in that (sixty-six) page PDF. Other elements continued (tho this update is April, and it's now July), and some aren't due for well over another year. Is that the kind of pace that we should expect?
George said: "Now, when you say, "ICANN is broken in so many ways, some of which we know, some we suspect, some that are hidden by obfuscation and even secrecy," say more, give concrete examples of brokenness and the directions the fix could take."
You gave ATRT as an example and referred to the "strange case" of failure to implement. Now apparently the problem is the timetable.
I regard that as reasonably understood as a "breakage". I'm not used to timescales of that sort in delivering improvements. If that's the kind of timeframe the ICANN community is happy with, that's fine by me! We will simply have to agree to disagree as to whether that is what it is or not. I don't have a view as to what the "right" answer is - I was simply offering my perspective.
Also: sixty-six pages is not the kind of summary that is a useful dashboard look at what is happening. Is part of the new dashboard approach going to summarise this information more briefly, more meaningfully?
So we're clear are we that this is not an example of obfuscation or secrecy? Rather it seems you are concerned, now, that there is too much detail. Which indicates to me that what we are actually dealing with is an example "damned if we do and damned if we don't".
That's not my point at all. Having detailed information is incredibly important, and the way the ATRT information you sent out is set out is helpful. Yet to read and absorb it is a commitment of a considerable amount of time. If there is brief summary material available on key matters within the ICANN community then yes, in my view, that is an example of a material improvement in accountability. It simply allows a wider part of the ICANN constituency to understand the key points. <snip>
You challenged Jonathan to pose some examples; he did so; as far as I can find, this is the first time you've responded. I didn't quite know what to make of your silence, but now I do at least in respect of one of his points :-)
Jonathan had posted in a subsequent note that he realised he had breached his own suggested protocol by posting the list. I decided on that basis not to respond. Your restatement of the list in the context of answering George's question led to me to chose an example.
I didn't notice that from him at the time or subsequently, and so I apologise for its restatement.
It leads to a more important question tho:
How can we have a sophisticated, evidence based discussion about the specific examples of failures in ICANN's accountability, the breadth of view as to whether they are failures or not, in a way that helps the CCWG do its work?
Well, we could do what I suggested. Come up with an example from the past that we all understand and agree is something that there would be community consensus to overturn. And acknowledge that in truth these are few and far between.
Speaking personally, I think the problem with dealing with this (evidencing and exploring some past specific example) is that it takes us back to the notion that the reason that there is an accountability improvement process of the sort that is happening now is because of some real (or worse, imagined) litany of past mistakes.
From my point of view, the reason there are needs for systemic improvement in ICANN accountability is because of the demise of the external accountability created by the IANA Functions contract. That's the explicit basis for this whole exercise - the stewardship transition.
The proposal isn't intended to deal with specific past failures. It is intended to respond to the new environment that ICANN and its community find itself in, and to try and build a framework that can be sustainable in securing the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance in the ICANN domain. Because that's my view, it might have been more sensible to not participate in this thread at all, since it takes us down the track that doesn't help. But nobody's perfect.
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.
+1. J
Hi Jordan, You also asked earlier in this thread for information about ATRT 1. See ATRT1 Scoresheet has been published on the Accountability page https://community.icann.org/display/prgrmatrt2impl/Implementation+of+ATRT1+R... Cheers, Chris
On 14 Jul 2015, at 16:00, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Trying to pick up a few points in an effort to be constructive:
On 12 July 2015 at 19:41, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: Hello Jordan,
See in line below.
Cheers,
Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: ceo@auda.org.au | W: www.auda.org.au
auDA - Australia's Domain Name Administrator
On 12 Jul 2015, at 14:17, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
Hi all, hi Chris:
On 12 July 2015 at 15:54, Chris Disspain <ceo@auda.org.au> wrote: Hi Jordan,
On ATRT, please see https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/atrt2-recommendation-implementat... and let me know the 'strange cases' to which you refer.
Probably the implementation timetable. The report was submitted in December 2013. It is July 2015. There seem to be ticks in the boxes marking complete for roughly half the components in that (sixty-six) page PDF. Other elements continued (tho this update is April, and it's now July), and some aren't due for well over another year. Is that the kind of pace that we should expect?
George said: "Now, when you say, "ICANN is broken in so many ways, some of which we know, some we suspect, some that are hidden by obfuscation and even secrecy," say more, give concrete examples of brokenness and the directions the fix could take."
You gave ATRT as an example and referred to the "strange case" of failure to implement. Now apparently the problem is the timetable.
I regard that as reasonably understood as a "breakage". I'm not used to timescales of that sort in delivering improvements. If that's the kind of timeframe the ICANN community is happy with, that's fine by me! We will simply have to agree to disagree as to whether that is what it is or not. I don't have a view as to what the "right" answer is - I was simply offering my perspective.
Also: sixty-six pages is not the kind of summary that is a useful dashboard look at what is happening. Is part of the new dashboard approach going to summarise this information more briefly, more meaningfully?
So we're clear are we that this is not an example of obfuscation or secrecy? Rather it seems you are concerned, now, that there is too much detail. Which indicates to me that what we are actually dealing with is an example "damned if we do and damned if we don't".
That's not my point at all. Having detailed information is incredibly important, and the way the ATRT information you sent out is set out is helpful.
Yet to read and absorb it is a commitment of a considerable amount of time. If there is brief summary material available on key matters within the ICANN community then yes, in my view, that is an example of a material improvement in accountability. It simply allows a wider part of the ICANN constituency to understand the key points.
<snip>
You challenged Jonathan to pose some examples; he did so; as far as I can find, this is the first time you've responded. I didn't quite know what to make of your silence, but now I do at least in respect of one of his points :-)
Jonathan had posted in a subsequent note that he realised he had breached his own suggested protocol by posting the list. I decided on that basis not to respond. Your restatement of the list in the context of answering George's question led to me to chose an example.
I didn't notice that from him at the time or subsequently, and so I apologise for its restatement.
It leads to a more important question tho:
How can we have a sophisticated, evidence based discussion about the specific examples of failures in ICANN's accountability, the breadth of view as to whether they are failures or not, in a way that helps the CCWG do its work?
Well, we could do what I suggested. Come up with an example from the past that we all understand and agree is something that there would be community consensus to overturn. And acknowledge that in truth these are few and far between.
Speaking personally, I think the problem with dealing with this (evidencing and exploring some past specific example) is that it takes us back to the notion that the reason that there is an accountability improvement process of the sort that is happening now is because of some real (or worse, imagined) litany of past mistakes.
From my point of view, the reason there are needs for systemic improvement in ICANN accountability is because of the demise of the external accountability created by the IANA Functions contract. That's the explicit basis for this whole exercise - the stewardship transition.
The proposal isn't intended to deal with specific past failures. It is intended to respond to the new environment that ICANN and its community find itself in, and to try and build a framework that can be sustainable in securing the multistakeholder approach to Internet governance in the ICANN domain.
Because that's my view, it might have been more sensible to not participate in this thread at all, since it takes us down the track that doesn't help. But nobody's perfect.
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.
+1.
J
participants (2)
-
Chris Disspain -
Jordan Carter