Something that may be useful in your discussions about staff accountability.
I have been digging into the unusual decision of ICANN's staff to redact the final report of the IRP into the .Africa case.
This morning, I posted a second article on it in which highlights that staff not only directly intervened in the process but then went to some lengths to hide that fact. The response as to why it had done so was also highly misleading.
The key aspects in terms of accountability that concern me are:
* ICANN staff appeared to have consciously tried to avoid leaving a paper trail of their interventions in what was supposed to be an independent evaluation
* There are multiple layers of opaqueness built into the system designed to ensure that staff's actions are never revealed - a significant one being the independent evaluators are themselves under a confidentiality agreement with ICANN the corporation (as opposed to the wider organization)
* When some details of staff actions did make it out through the final IRP report, ICANN immediately sought to cover them up by redacting the report - something it did despite the prevailing party specifically objecting
* ICANN staff is not afraid to use its unaccountability as a way to pressure people into not revealing its wrongdoing. So in the .Africa case for example, ICANN told DCA that it should not publish an unredacted version of the final report without its approval: DCA of course is completely reliant on ICANN to act on the report and to re-evaluate its application
What also concerns me in that in many of these discussions, people have put forward the argument that the ICANN Board should be mainly responsible for looking into staff actions.
In this case in particular, despite staff action being highlighted as unfair and discriminatory, and despite the staff then giving a misleading account of its own actions, the Board has just to even suggest it may look into events. In fact, I can't recall any occasion on which the ICANN Board has decided to carry out its own investigation.
Plus of course in this case, the IRP found that the Board itself was also culpable of not acting fairly or neutrally.
Just some things to bear in mind when deciding on the *limits* on staff accountability that will inevitably form a part of the conversation.
Kieren