Hi, all, Sometimes it's difficult as both a board member and a member of the working group to distinguish one's role. In response to Jordan's comment, I can confirm that I was speaking as an individual, hoping to help the group to proceed toward useful results. I'm certainly not in favor of having the group act as a "star chamber" or as a group to highlight any real or perceived misdeeds on the part of individual staff members. However, I think there is a way in which evidence about non-optimal staff action can be used in a productive and constructive manner to help the group reach its conclusions. My own model for an effort like this consists (very approximately) of the following steps: 1. note that there is some kind of a problem that needs to be solved. If there is no evidence of a problem, then why should the effort even begin? 2. collect evidence that illustrates the problem. If There is no evidence, then where does the perception of a problem come from? I do admit that it's quite possible to have an intuitive "feeling" that a problem might exist without specific evidence to back up that feeling, and that should not be dismissed. 3. figure out possible solutions to the problem based upon an analysis of the situation of the constraints under which the larger organizational processes operating 4. "stress test" the solutions through discussion based upon their ability to solve the existing problem and minimize any negative externalities that are produced 5. recommend implementation of the chosen solution 6. after implementation, observe the results of having implemented the solution and determine in real life whether the "stress testing" was accurate. This is a model that starts with the evidence that there is a problem and goes on to devise solutions to address it. In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. you are then suggesting that these hypotheses should be presented to the larger group to determine if there is evidence that supports them or not. On the basis of what you find, you will then make recommendations regarding any changes that might need to be made to address those issues which are supported by evidence from a larger population. This is consistent with your expectation that this will leave you with a very small group of issues and a very light set of changes recommended to ICANN. I think I understand this, and it's quite consistent as you point out to keeping an open mind with regard to what the conclusions of your investigation will be. The thing that is omitted in this approach is having the dialogue with staff. I think this can be done in a non-confrontational manner, and I think that it would actually help community – staff relationships if there could be a constructive dialogue addressing some of the questions asked. With few exceptions if any, I believe that staff is not hostile to the community in any systematic manner and would like to be part of any solution to any problems that are perceived in the community. Having the dialogue would help this to happen. I take positively your last suggestion. I would like to help as a member of the community to bring this effort to a close which is seen as effective and fair. I think that if you present your issues list to the larger CCWG group – – as well as to other people in the community – – as a set of hypotheses and ask for opinions and evidence to support or refute the hypotheses, and if the respondents treat your request appropriately, then you will have the material you need to discuss the recommendations phase of your work. I do worry somewhat about staff bashing. My experience, although limited, indicates that it's very easy for people to say negative things about ICANN, but that the truth of a given issue is best determined by dialogue between the two sides joined by the issue. I don't see that happening in the current course of activity. Please let me know if you think I'm being helpful or not helpful in the interventions that I make and feel free to suggest things that I should do or should not do to help you achieve your goal. Best regards, George On Apr 18, 2017, at 10:39 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz> wrote:
hi Greg, all:
The staff questions came in their reply to our questions, in December:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6MyPqTCjxXtVmxUeHBNbHFVMjA/view?usp=sharin... <https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6MyPqTCjxXtVmxUeHBNbHFVMjA/view?usp=sharin...>
Avri and I have discussed this topic with ICANN staff (at Copenhagen and since), and so I am assuming that George is asking as George, and / or an ICANN Board member. The staff we've been dealing with have been clear that they think a response to their questions would be helpful, and we've contextualised it as hoping that responses will become available through the work we are doing with the issues / resolution piece.
HTH.
cheers Jordan
On 19 April 2017 at 14:31, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: Was there any covering note when this was sent by staff? It would good to understand the circumstances in which it was sent. Depending on those circumstances, it might be good to acknowledge this and provide some preliminary responses to indicate how these questions will be explored in our work. I tend to doubt that staff wanted the Subgroup to "air dirty laundry" in response to their questions -- I suspect they wanted to get a better idea of what we're doing and where we're going. Obviously, we are not going to prejudge the work of the group -- this should be viewed as a piece of the larger discussion with staff on the issues of our group.
One of the issues we have cited as an impediment to our work is the relative inability to have a constructive dialogue with, and input by, staff. It seems to me that responding to this in a constructive, albeit preliminary, manner would be a step in the right direction. Not responding, or responding by saying we added your questions to our issues list, and we'll get back to you when we're done, with answers, maybe, is not as positive a step.
Greg
<>Greg Shatan C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <tel:06-845%209428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> wrote: hi George
To recap: we face a choice about whether to dig into "cases", or whether to look at "issues". The group has agreed to look at issues, validated by cases, to avoid dragging past actions of individuals into the discussion.
We can't do it both ways.
Either we can avoid getting into specific cases in public, or not.
If we want to avoid that (and I do, because I don't think it is acceptable for this group to behave as some kind of star chamber, looking at past actions and sitting in judgement on them), then we have two options:
- look at systemic or broader issues INFORMED by those indiv experiences - stop the work
The latter isn't acceptable. So we are proceeding on the most reasonable basis available.
The work approach, which you were present for the discussion about, is to:
- surface the issues IDd by this v small group with the full CCWG - validate or reject the "reality" or importance of the issues based on that wider input - make sure there are appropriate layers of solutions developed for the issues - pull the material together and conduct a community-wide consultation on the package.
My expectation is that this will leave us with a very small group of issues and a very light set of changes recommended to how ICANN a) provides a forum for people to raise concerns b) shows that its staff accountability processes take account of community feedback
I haven't seen any evidence so far that warrants a more intrusive outcome, but I do not want to jump the gun. We *have* to give the wider group the opportunity to register the issues they have experienced. Or, to show that there aren't any issues. I'm keeping an open mind on that.
In doing that work of seeking input, we will then be in a position to respond to the staff's request for detail and evidence. Or, to point them in the direction to get it. Or, to respond that in our view it isn't appropriate for us to do so.
If ICANN as an organisation would like to take a different approach that digs into specific cases, or solicits evidence of those from the community for resolution or assessment, it is welcome to. That's not what our group is mandated to do.
A final point on timing. Yes, this group is running slower than planned. We've had to adjust our work method to reflect the reality of volunteer time and commitment, late criticism from you as a Board member (which however valid, was still very late), and doing a proper job. There is no way to change where we are at now.
I'd request that you focus on what we do next, and how we bring this to a conclusion, if you can.
best Jordan
On 19 April 2017 at 05:39, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com <mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com>> wrote: Avri,
I don't mean to be difficult, but it seems to me that the questions from staff are asking for concrete evidence regarding the existence and seriousness of issues.
If you're saying that the group cannot answer staff's questions because it doesn't have any evidence with which to respond, I can understand that. However, then adding it to the issues list is really mixing apples and oranges; the staff questions are asking for evidence, not specifying issues. It implies that the group really needs to spend time collecting evidence to decide whether the issues on the issues list are real issues or whether they should be discarded as non-issues. It also implies that the work of the group is lagging substantially if it hasn't decided yet what are the real issues to be discussed with a view toward specific remedies for amelioration.
I sense a tendency on the part of the group to avoid specifics and hard evidence, when this is precisely what you need to characterize the issues and verify that they are real. I think that at some point you have to bite the bullet and get into specifics.
Disabuse me of this, please.
George
On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:26 PM, avri doria <avri@apc.org <mailto:avri@apc.org>> wrote:
Hi,
As was mentioned on the call, their questions are being folded into the issues list.
The issues list is meant to collect "real problems that exist".
It you think that there is an issue contained in the staff questions that does not figure out in the issues lists, please point it out, and better yet, add it to the issues list.
At the end of the issues list resolution discussion and solution finding, we can then perhaps answer their questions.
Thanks
avri
On 18-Apr-17 11:32, George Sadowsky wrote:
Avri and Jordan,
I ask this out of ignorance.
Has there been a response from the working group to the questions that the staff addressed to the group (attached)? If not, does it make sense to prepare such a response in order to sharpen the focus on real problems that exist?
George