Dear John,
You are correct that the survey did not refer to specific accountability standards, and I tend to agree that it is close to a “community satisfaction survey”. It’s up to this group to decide what you mean by SO/AC accountability and whether that type of approach is part of it, and/or specific standards are recommended.
Best
Mathieu
De : John Curran [mailto:jcurran@istaff.org]
Envoyé : jeudi 28 juillet 2016 02:40
À : Mathieu Weill
Cc : ws2-so_ac@icann.org
Objet : Re: [Ws2-so_ac] ccNSO survey on accountability
On Jul 19, 2016, at 10:14 AM, Mathieu Weill <mathieu.weill@afnic.fr> wrote:
With permission from the ccNSO, I am sharing two links related to the recent survey conducted on the ccNSO’s accountability. Results were discussed in Helsinki. I think this example can be a useful input for this group.
Mathieu -
If I understand the survey, it was focused on the ccNSO community’s
views of the ccNSO Council’s accountability to that community, without
any reference to specific accountability performance standards? (for
example - “Has the ccNSO Council administrated and coordinated the
affairs of the ccNSO in accordance with article IX off the ICANN bylaws”,
or “Has the operation of the ccNSO Council resulted in ccNSO decision
making occurring in a manner open and transparent to the ccNSO
I do believe that the survey is very useful, and I am simply trying better
understand its purpose so as to compare it to the work of this subgroup.
I guess if I were to categorize the survey, I would label it as a “community
satisfaction” survey - is that what we mean by "SO/AC accountability?”
Disclaimer: my views alone - hold no other party accountable for same.