ALAC statement on the WS2 Staff Accountability Recommendations?
Greetings all Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report). Here is a brief overview before my recommendation. The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field. A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability. One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all. A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org. My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes. Maureen
Hi Maureen Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read the 9 pages ;-) In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for their work. Happy to see they conclude: ‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent. The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’ The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing spectacular there. A question though, just to clarify. Looking at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/accountability-recs-2017-11-13-en there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it says a.o.: ‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2: • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors. • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’ What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live up to this? thanks again Bastiaan
On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings all
Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report).
Here is a brief overview before my recommendation.
The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field.
A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.
One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all.
A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org.
My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes.
Maureen _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Btw forgot to mention it - now that I vested a bit of time into this I’d be happy to work with you, Maureen, on a short statement. In line with your recommendation. & Assuming others are ok with that.
On 24 Nov 2017, at 08:38, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi Maureen
Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read the 9 pages ;-)
In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for their work. Happy to see they conclude:
‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent. The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’
The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing spectacular there.
A question though, just to clarify.
Looking at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/accountability-recs-2017-11-13-en there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it says a.o.:
‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2:
• The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors. • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’
What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live up to this?
thanks again Bastiaan
On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings all
Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report).
Here is a brief overview before my recommendation.
The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field.
A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.
One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all.
A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org.
My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes.
Maureen _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Thanks for the comments Bastiaan. Nice to know someone read it. My assumption was that anything from a previous Workstream would have been taken into account by WS2, but thank you for raising it. We can get clarification from Cheryl and Alan n case we need to include that into a general comment. M On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Bastiaan Goslings < bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi Maureen
Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read the 9 pages ;-)
In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for their work. Happy to see they conclude:
‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent. The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’
The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing spectacular there.
A question though, just to clarify.
Looking at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/accountability-recs- 2017-11-13-en there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it says a.o.:
‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2:
• The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors. • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’
What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live up to this?
thanks again Bastiaan
On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings all
Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report).
Here is a brief overview before my recommendation.
The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field.
A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.
One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all.
A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org.
My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes.
Maureen _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Hello Bastiaan and All, Just want to remind everyone that the wiki workspace for this public comment proceeding is here: https://community.icann.org/x/eAlyB. For transparency purposes, it would be most helpful that you post your comments directly to that wiki workspace using the ‘comment’ function. Please remember to log into your confluence wiki account to do so. Bastiaan, do you mind that I post your comments there, unless there is modification? Thank you, Ariel On 11/24/17, 2:39 AM, "ALAC on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings" <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Hi Maureen Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read the 9 pages ;-) In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for their work. Happy to see they conclude: ‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent. The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’ The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing spectacular there. A question though, just to clarify. Looking at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D... there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it says a.o.: ‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2: • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors. • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’ What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live up to this? thanks again Bastiaan > On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: > > Greetings all > > Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report). > > Here is a brief overview before my recommendation. > > The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field. > > A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability. > > One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all. > > A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org. > > My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes. > > Maureen > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o... > > At-Large Online: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org&d=... > ALAC Working Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis... _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o... At-Large Online: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org&d=... ALAC Working Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...
Thanks, Ariel - sure, go ahead, post away ;-) (Seriously: no prob. Thank you. Maybe leave out the first sentence?) Bastiaan -- Envoyé de mon iPhone
On 27 Nov 2017, at 19:03, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Bastiaan and All,
Just want to remind everyone that the wiki workspace for this public comment proceeding is here: https://community.icann.org/x/eAlyB. For transparency purposes, it would be most helpful that you post your comments directly to that wiki workspace using the ‘comment’ function. Please remember to log into your confluence wiki account to do so.
Bastiaan, do you mind that I post your comments there, unless there is modification?
Thank you, Ariel
On 11/24/17, 2:39 AM, "ALAC on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings" <alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi Maureen
Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read the 9 pages ;-)
In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for their work. Happy to see they conclude:
‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent. The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’
The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing spectacular there.
A question though, just to clarify.
Looking at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_public-2D... there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it says a.o.:
‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2:
• The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors. • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’
What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live up to this?
thanks again Bastiaan
On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings all
Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report).
Here is a brief overview before my recommendation.
The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field.
A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.
One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all.
A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org.
My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes.
Maureen _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...
At-Large Online: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org&d=... ALAC Working Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__atlarge-2Dlists.icann.o...
At-Large Online: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org&d=... ALAC Working Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_dis...
Thanks Adding all the Call for Public Comments to the revamped Monthly NARALO newsletter G Glenn McKnight NARALO Secretariat mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 . On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Bastiaan Goslings < bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Thanks, Ariel - sure, go ahead, post away ;-)
(Seriously: no prob. Thank you. Maybe leave out the first sentence?)
Bastiaan
-- Envoyé de mon iPhone
On 27 Nov 2017, at 19:03, Ariel Liang <ariel.liang@icann.org> wrote:
Hello Bastiaan and All,
Just want to remind everyone that the wiki workspace for this public comment proceeding is here: https://community.icann.org/x/eAlyB. For transparency purposes, it would be most helpful that you post your comments directly to that wiki workspace using the ‘comment’ function. Please remember to log into your confluence wiki account to do so.
Bastiaan, do you mind that I post your comments there, unless there is modification?
Thank you, Ariel
On 11/24/17, 2:39 AM, "ALAC on behalf of Bastiaan Goslings" < alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
Hi Maureen
Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read the 9 pages ;-)
In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for their work. Happy to see they conclude:
‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent. The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’
The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing spectacular there.
A question though, just to clarify.
Looking at https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. icann.org_public-2Dcomments_accountability-2Drecs-2D2017- 2D11-2D13-2Den&d=DwIGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r= ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk-Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_ FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s=wOO19lrTh_dUPiIbMlY51mhYxpHYPGCJ3Vh27yXQSNA&e= there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it says a.o.:
‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2:
• The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors. • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct, transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders, establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’
What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live up to this?
thanks again Bastiaan
On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Greetings all
Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2, Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a short report).
Here is a brief overview before my recommendation.
The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to support continuous improvement within it. This is important from the perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities, as the primary role of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both directly and out in the field.
A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the success of any joint ventures. The CCWG's recommendations outline actions that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.
One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all.
A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org.
My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's performance management and other evaluative processes.
Maureen _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ atlarge-2Dlists.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_alac&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk- Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s= nsRXWbkGy2JgNAaWkqD_jgNgZtQaceqTqjlfdVUwk4g&e=
At-Large Online: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk- Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s= nKlRGJSb9eN6xNgxKEqIMBXWPueqfLS4YVn99kntmK8&e= ALAC Working Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_ atlarge_At-2DLarge-2BAdvisory-2BCommittee-2B-28ALAC-29&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk- Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s= 4IbvHX9kpMHcO71VU8KCG0r33K6ZlNREdZV1tpNpjqM&e=
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__ atlarge-2Dlists.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_alac&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk- Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s= nsRXWbkGy2JgNAaWkqD_jgNgZtQaceqTqjlfdVUwk4g&e=
At-Large Online: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.atlarge.icann.org&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk- Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s= nKlRGJSb9eN6xNgxKEqIMBXWPueqfLS4YVn99kntmK8&e= ALAC Working Wiki: https://urldefense.proofpoint. com/v2/url?u=https-3A__community.icann.org_display_ atlarge_At-2DLarge-2BAdvisory-2BCommittee-2B-28ALAC-29&d=DwIGaQ&c= FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=ds9md1zoepmwqw2nfk- Vs9ssxn1I3jPs97ekKkctEkM&m=KaeyWRP9csL7bFa6HnzD5QXoPw_FK3ih7JRVVsL9E3E&s= 4IbvHX9kpMHcO71VU8KCG0r33K6ZlNREdZV1tpNpjqM&e=
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
participants (4)
-
Ariel Liang -
Bastiaan Goslings -
Glenn McKnight -
Maureen Hilyard