hi all I wonder if it is worth pulling together a one pager about this, possibly in conjunction with the Ombuds group given the links intended (or at least mentioned by Göran) between the complaints officer and the Ombudsman? cheers Jordan On 2 November 2016 at 14:52, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+1 in agreement with Greg
*Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal*
*Virtualaw LLC*
*1155 F Street, NW*
*Suite 1050*
*Washington, DC 20004*
*202-559-8597/Direct*
*202-559-8750/Fax*
*202-255-6172/cell*
*"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey*
------------------------------ *From:* ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] on behalf of Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, November 02, 2016 4:41 AM *To:* avri doria *Cc:* ws2-staff_acct@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff accountability and the new complaints function
I will pass on an observation from an ICANN-watcher regarding the style of ICANN legal as a "defender." This person is very familiar with how legal departments deal with shareholders and other stakeholders. This person remarked to me that the style of ICANN legal in dealing with the ICANN community often tends to resemble the way US corporations deal with "dissident shareholders."
Dissident shareholders are usually "outsiders" seeking to shake up a corporation, particularly board and senior management -- sometimes they are "crackpots" with small shareholdings who like to submit motions that seek significant changes that have no chance of success, and sometimes they are major shareholders (often newer investors) who seek to wield their power to make significant changes that may well have a chance of success (the second type also gets called "activist shareholders"). Both types make organizations feel as if they are under attack, and they respond with that mindset. (They may even call in lawyers who specialize in "dealing with" dissident shareholders, to augment their regular counsel.)
Of course, the stakeholder community is not analogous to dissident shareholders -- which makes this comparison more jarring. The new role of the global multistakeholder community as the oversight/accountability mechanism for ICANN underscores the potential concerns (dangers, even) of a continuing an approach that bears any resemblance to one used to wrangle dissident shareholders.
Against this background, putting the Complaints Officer under ICANN legal bears careful review.
Greg
On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 2:45 AM, avri doria <avri@apc.org> wrote:
Hi,
One of the subjects discussed with the CEO in the CCWG meeting this morning was the complaints function and how it would work. After a bit of discussion the subject was passed on to our subgroup for follow up.
The issues to be reviewed include:
* The placement of the function in the legal department, particularly considering the legal obligation of legal dept. to protect the organization and the conflict of interest this creates in impartially dealing with complaints * what impact does the imperative on legal to "Defend the Fortress/Faith" have on how people might have complaints dealt with, or their willingness to complain * Any other aspects that people can think of or that come up in the discussions.
Thanks
Avri & Jordan
co-rapporteurs
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
-- Jordan Carter Chief Executive *InternetNZ * +64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz *A better world through a better Internet*