Dear Christopher, all: I would like to start by clarifying that this is the document of the Staff Accountability subgroup, not "mine". Secondly, that we'd like to ask people to give feedback at the next plenary. Thirdly, that any discussion of this subject risks making people uncomfortable, especially ICANN staff. We can only mitigate that by being clear about what we are trying to do: - look at systems - improve things in the future We can only do that work by being sure the problems or issues identified are real ones. So some specific details about things that have happened need to be dealt with sensitively. Please don't raise people's names or specific cases in the Google doc or on the lists - if you need to share information about past events, please do it out of the public gaze. On the substance of Christopher's email: - since our subgroup isn't mandated to take the broad approach you suggest (of identifying "the principle failings of ICANN"), we didn't consider doing so. It might be a more effective way to do parts of the whole CCWG's work, but it isn't what we are doing. - in the absence of such an holistic approach, the notion of identifying issues is intended to avoid personalising or dealing with individual cases where anyone has had an issue with anyone else. We do not have a mandate to, and do not want to, become some kind of kangaroo court - I think you would support that sentiment. - the next steps in the work of the subgroup are to narrow down the list of "issues" and to develop responses to them that mitigate them, and their impacts, by resolving their causes where possible. - that total sum of work would be what we ask the community for comment on over the middle of the year. - the language in the table is not intended to be judgemental or to ascribe fault. We are dealing essentially with accountability and performance systems. That's the focus. If the language looks that way, we must fix it because that is not the intention. My own view based on what I have experienced directly and seen through this process is that there are some systemic gaps that can be closed quite straightforwardly, but I don't have the evidence yet to validate that and neither does anyone else. Thanks for the feedback on your part which indicates you haven't seen any of the issues identified as playing out. Jordan On 19 April 2017 at 06:48, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu < lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:

Dear Jordan:

Thankyou. I have read your draft issues Analysis Table. I must say that I find that this is not a very constructive approach to the matter.

After many years' experience with the GAC and At Large and a reasonable background in ccTLD matters, I do not recognise the 'Issues' as described.

I would also be concerned that the drafting of some of the 'Impacts' might suggest conflicts, hostility and insecurity, without justification. Furthermore, it will always be difficult to base an evidence-based policy on 'unexpressed concerns'.

More generally, I assume that your SA WG will develop recommendations which take account of the mutual rights and responsibilities that arise from ICANN's contracts with the staff. Also, in the event of complaints from members of the community, are existing procedures satisfactory? Do the SA WG's proposals respect confidentiality and the rights of individual complainants and members of the staff?

Alternatively, if asked, I might have suggested an entirely different approach:

*Question:* which have been the principal failings of ICANN in recent years? To what extent, if any, have the staff been responsible or complicit in sustaining proposals that have given rise to these failures?

I can think of two areas where this hypothesis might be tested:

1. The new gTLD programme and specifically ignoring advice against vertical integration and failure to implement support for undeserved regions.

2. Longstanding refusal to address the fact that Whois breaches privacy laws in many jurisdictions, notably the EU. (I gather this was discussed for the first time with data protection commissioners during ICANN58)

So, you see, my list would be substantive, but short. And I would not pre-suppose any form of negligence or *manquement* on the part of the staff unless substantiated in a specific instance.

I would not set up an enquiry which sets the staff up against the community, across the board.

Regards

Christopher

PS: I shall investigate the possibility of introducing these comments into your Google Doc, but I am not optimistic. Perhaps the staff could help me.

On 18 Apr 2017, at 02:34, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:

Dear CCWG participants,

The Staff Accountability subgroup has been following the changed approach to our work we agreed together in Copenhagen at ICANN 58.

We now need some input from you, and we hope you can offer some thoughts. This is *not* a First Reading request, it is a request for you to share some experience you may or may not have with us over the next week or so.

In dealing with the staff accountability subject, we are in a "problem identification" phase. We are trying to understand and log the challenges or concerns people have with staff accountability matters.

With each issue identified, we are identifying CONTRIBUTIONS to that issue (i.e. what is making it an issue / problem); and IMPACTS of that issue (what are the consequences of the issue, what effect does it have on the ICANN system?).

Once we know the set of issues, we'll start working on ways to solve them. But being clear about the issues or problems is the first step, and where we are now.

*Please review the table attached (.pdf or .docx), or in Google docs, at * <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9 MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROosNU/edit?usp=sharing>

We would welcome your feedback on these particular points:

1. Are the issues identified so far issues which seem general, or are they based (to your knowledge) on one-off circumstances? [we should only try and solve systemic or recurring issues, not one-offs]

2. Are there issues not on the list that we should be thinking about? (If so, please add them as tracked changes in the google doc)

3. Are there other contributions to the issues in the list, or impacts from the issues, that you can add to make the table richer and more accurate? (if so, please add them as tracked changes in the google doc)

Thanks for sharing your thinking with us over the next week or so. *It would be most helpful if you could add your thoughts in the Google doc rather than by email on the list. *

Avri Doria, Jordan Carter Co-Rapporteurs, Staff Accountability, CCWG <2017-04-17-StaffAcct-IssuesAnalysisTable.docx><2017-04-17-StaffAcct- IssuesAnalysisTable.pdf>_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ * +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz *A better world through a better Internet*