Avri, et al, A few comments in line below. These are in my personal reactions, not an official response from the Board. Steve On Dec 4, 2013, at 9:16 PM, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Hi,
Since my laptop died and my new one was delayed in shipping, I still do not have adequate word capability.
I have made my recommended changes below, apologies for my inability to do redline.
4 Develop complementary mechanisms for SO/AC consultation on administrative and executive issues to be addressed at the Board level. (Re: policy vs. implementation vs. executive function distinction (ATRT1 6); Report Section 5)
Replace with:
4 Develop mechanisms whereby the Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC ) can consult with the Board on issues determined to be administrative and executive issues. (Re: policy vs. implementation vs. executive function distinction (ATRT1 6); Report Section 5)
I always pause when I see "consult with the Board" or an equivalent phrase. The Board's primary role is to oversee the functioning of the organization. Except when absolutely necessary, we do not attempt to get into the substance of particular situations. Rather, we try to make sure that the people who are responsible for working on the substantive issues have done their job. I'm not exactly sure what mechanisms we'd develop to satisfy this recommendation that are different from what we already have in place. What sort of actual change are you looking for?
9.2. Explore Options for Restructuring Current Review Mechanisms The ICANN Board should convene a Special Community Committee to discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to restructuring of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the Reconsideration Process. The group will use the report of the Experts Group Report (ESEP) on Restructuring as one basis for its discussions.
Replace with:
9.2. Explore Options for Restructuring Current Review Mechanisms The ICANN Board should convene a Special Community Committee to discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to restructuring of the Independent Review Panel (IRP) and the Reconsideration Process. The group will use the report of the Experts Group Report (ESEP) on Restructuring as one basis for its discussions. All recommendation of this Special Community Committee would be subject to full community participation, consultation and review.
Hmmm…. Is this exactly what this group, i.e. the ATRT2, is doing?
9.5. Establish a Viable Whistleblower Program Adopt the One World Trust and/or Berkman Center recommendations to establish a viable whistleblower program. The processes for ICANN employee transparency and whistleblowing should be made public. ICANN also should arrange for an annual professional audit of its whistleblower policy to insure that the program meets the global best practices.
Replace with
9.5. Determine the Viabilty of the ICANN Whistleblower Program (aka the employee hotline) and implement any necessary improvements
Adopt the One World Trust recommendations to establish a viable whistleblower program. The processes for ICANN employee transparency and whistleblowing should be made public. ICANN also should arrange for an annual professional audit of its whistleblower policy to insure that the program meets the global best practices.
I appreciate the change in wording so there's not an implication that the current whistleblower program isn't viable ;) I don't mind doing a review of our whistleblower program. As I recall, it was set up with a great deal of care and adherence to best practices. It was also tested. As best I can tell from the discussion within this group, there seems to be a desire for people outside of the ICANN staff and management to be able to see it in operation. I'm not sure that's appropriate. We'll see what the response is when we receive this recommendation. There might simply be different understandings of the purpose and best practice in this area. Steve