Staff accountability and the new complaints function
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
hi all By way of further on this - below is an extract from the blog post that Göran published announcing the change, available at < https://www.icann.org/news/blog/evolving-icann-s-executive-team>. Seems to me there is a need to be clear about what other processes this is and isn't cutting across - e.g. this person won't be the recipient of Reconsideration Requests, one assumes. J. *I am also expanding John’s remit as we are creating a new role of an ICANN Complaints Officer. The ICANN Complaints Officer will receive, investigate and respond to complaints about the ICANN organization’s effectiveness, and will be responsible for all complaints systems and mechanisms across the ICANN organization. We will be appointing someone to this role, reporting directly to John. This person will work closely with Ombudsman Herb Wayne.* *The Complaints Officer is an important role that will provide a focus point for the community if they have complaints about the ICANN organization. It is an additional way to keep the organization and me accountable to you, the global ICANN community. The purpose of the office is to ensure that complaints and particularly those of community members, about systemic issues or concerns about the organization are heard, reviewed, analyzed and resolved as openly as appropriate. I want to be clear though that this in no way replaces or supersedes the important role of all ICANN’s formal accountability mechanisms.* On 2 November 2016 at 19:45, 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
-- 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*
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
+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<mailto: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<mailto:Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
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*
If I may briefly interject with a clarification about any relationship my Office might have with the new Complaints Officer. The relationship will be strictly that of referral of complaints. We will not be conducting investigations of any sort together and there will be no sharing of information at any time. I envision non-jurisdictional complaints regarding staff will now be referred to the ICANN Complaints Officer rather than to an appropriate manager or HR. In much the same way complaints to the Complaints Officer that are more suitable to be investigated by the Ombudsman, systemic issues for example, will be directed to the Office of the Ombudsman. Jurisdictional complaints received by the Office of the Ombudsman regarding staff will remain with the Office of the Ombudsman and will not be shared with the Complaints Officer in any manner. I will continue to resolve those complaints confidentially involving only the appropriate staff to conduct the investigation as has been done since the conception of the Office. I hope this makes things a bit clearer moving forward. Regards Herb Herb Waye ICANN Ombudsman https://www.icann.org/ombudsman https://www.facebook.com/ICANNOmbudsman Twitter: @IcannOmbudsman ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior: https://www.icann.org/sites/default/files/assets/expected-standards-22aug16-... Confidentiality All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential. The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the complaint. The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature of such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a complaint From: <ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: Friday, November 4, 2016 at 4:48 PM To: "ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct@icann.org>" <ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff accountability and the new complaints function 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<mailto: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<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org> [ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org>] on behalf of Greg Shatan [gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2016 4:41 AM To: avri doria Cc: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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[avast.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.avast.com_antivirus&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=kIm7BGIl3qR3NKOfU-SwstwQr15K9OhllVGUWu0k8uc&m=BFbdqOGpTQM3-5FUggXL6x2ZHgS7Pw0LWHXORlcbFv4&s=w3GCpU7C-1xAV0A_hV1sAXdsYNChFBvkFh08gtLR-dQ&e=> _______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto:Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct _______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto:jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz> | www.InternetNZ.nz[InternetNZ.nz]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.InternetNZ.nz&d=DQMF...> A better world through a better Internet
participants (5)
-
avri doria -
Greg Shatan -
Herb Waye -
Jordan Carter -
Phil Corwin