Revision of Issue Analysis Table
Hi, Have updated the Issues Analysis table with Impacts for rows 6&9 for completeness in <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROo...> pdf attached. This draft also includes the changes discussed in our last meeting. Plan to take a snapshot for the version to send for Plenary discussion on Tuesday 18 April. Please note any issues or problems with the issues table. Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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
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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
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> 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
--- 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
Hi, I do not beleive I can disabuse you of anything. Some direct evidence was given for the issues. We are taking the issue to the plenary to get discuss the general nature of the issues. To be certain each issue on the list has at least one or more instances behind it. Or are you looking for report with actionable evidence, documentation or all dates and conversations, pictures, and affidavits. I think we are trying to find the issues and build trust here not prosecute a case. There are other avenues for documenting and dealing with the actual cases. avri On 18-Apr-17 13:39, George Sadowsky 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> 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
--- 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
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> 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> 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
--- 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*
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 gregshatanipc@gmail.com On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Jordan Carter <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> 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> 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
--- 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 <+64%204-495%202118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <+64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz
*A better world through a better Internet*
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
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... 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> 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 <06-845%209428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Jordan Carter <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> 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> 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
--- 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 <+64%204-495%202118> (office) | +64-21-442-649 <+64%2021%20442%20649> (mob) | Skype: jordancarter jordan@InternetNZ.net.nz | www.InternetNZ.nz
*A better world through a better Internet*
_______________________________________________ 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*
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
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses.
I do not think think this is the case. The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported. avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cph-to-icann-board-24fe... and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-bunton-diaz-11.... I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing). Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses.
I do not think think this is the case. The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported. avri --- 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
Jeff, Row 2 of the table was the general issue that was meant to include the instance you documented. If this does not cover what you mean, please suggest some edits. Thanks avri Issues doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROo...> On 19-Apr-17 10:45, Jeff Neuman wrote:
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cph-to-icann-board-24fe... and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-bunton-diaz-11.... I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing).
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. I do not think think this is the case.
The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported.
avri
--- 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
Ok thanks. I was also referring to George's comment where he said that there was no evidence...... Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:27 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community Jeff, Row 2 of the table was the general issue that was meant to include the instance you documented. If this does not cover what you mean, please suggest some edits. Thanks avri Issues doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROo...> On 19-Apr-17 10:45, Jeff Neuman wrote:
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cph-to-icann-board-24fe... and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-bunton-diaz-11.... I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing).
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. I do not think think this is the case.
The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported.
avri
--- 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
_______________________________________________ Ws2-staff_acct mailing list Ws2-staff_acct@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ws2-staff_acct
Jeff, I think that I said "_if_ there is no evidence, then .... " or I certainly meant to say it. OK, if there is evidence then I guess there are two directions to consider. The first is to apply it to an issues list, as the group has done, and to build a more complete picture of what is going on, resulting eventually in recommendations for change. The second is to address the issues more directly by responding directly to staff questions so that there can be mutual understanding and at least partial resolution of the negative effects presented by the evidence. These aren't alternatives, but can be mixed in various ways. By not feeding evidence, however depersonalized, back to staff by engaging in a dialogue suggested by the questions that the staff asked of the group, IMHO the group misses an opportunity to achieve better understanding on both sides, which could positively inform any recommendations that the group might make. That is the group's decision to make. George
On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Ok thanks. I was also referring to George's comment where he said that there was no evidence......
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:27 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
Jeff,
Row 2 of the table was the general issue that was meant to include the instance you documented. If this does not cover what you mean, please suggest some edits.
Thanks avri
Issues doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzIDd1utROo...>
On 19-Apr-17 10:45, Jeff Neuman wrote:
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cph-to-icann-board-24fe... and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-bunton-diaz-11.... I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing).
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. I do not think think this is the case.
The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported.
avri
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Thanks George. On the contracted parties letter they are pursuing this matter directly with ICANN staff as you can see. There will be a customer satisfaction survey and more dialogue which will be good. But to the extent that these examples are systemic, I agree that this group should work on making recommendations. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:20 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: avri doria <avri@apc.org>; ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community Jeff, I think that I said "_if_ there is no evidence, then .... " or I certainly meant to say it. OK, if there is evidence then I guess there are two directions to consider. The first is to apply it to an issues list, as the group has done, and to build a more complete picture of what is going on, resulting eventually in recommendations for change. The second is to address the issues more directly by responding directly to staff questions so that there can be mutual understanding and at least partial resolution of the negative effects presented by the evidence. These aren't alternatives, but can be mixed in various ways. By not feeding evidence, however depersonalized, back to staff by engaging in a dialogue suggested by the questions that the staff asked of the group, IMHO the group misses an opportunity to achieve better understanding on both sides, which could positively inform any recommendations that the group might make. That is the group's decision to make. George
On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Ok thanks. I was also referring to George's comment where he said that there was no evidence......
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:27 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
Jeff,
Row 2 of the table was the general issue that was meant to include the instance you documented. If this does not cover what you mean, please suggest some edits.
Thanks avri
Issues doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzID d1utROosNU/edit?usp=sharing>
On 19-Apr-17 10:45, Jeff Neuman wrote:
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cph-to-icann-board-24fe... and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-bunton-diaz-11.... I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing).
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. I do not think think this is the case.
The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported.
avri
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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
Jeff - can you have a look at the issues table, and if there are specific systemic issues that aren't captured there so far, could you jot them in? thanks Jordan On 20 April 2017 at 07:38, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Thanks George. On the contracted parties letter they are pursuing this matter directly with ICANN staff as you can see. There will be a customer satisfaction survey and more dialogue which will be good. But to the extent that these examples are systemic, I agree that this group should work on making recommendations.
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:20 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: avri doria <avri@apc.org>; ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
Jeff,
I think that I said "_if_ there is no evidence, then .... " or I certainly meant to say it. OK, if there is evidence then I guess there are two directions to consider. The first is to apply it to an issues list, as the group has done, and to build a more complete picture of what is going on, resulting eventually in recommendations for change. The second is to address the issues more directly by responding directly to staff questions so that there can be mutual understanding and at least partial resolution of the negative effects presented by the evidence. These aren't alternatives, but can be mixed in various ways.
By not feeding evidence, however depersonalized, back to staff by engaging in a dialogue suggested by the questions that the staff asked of the group, IMHO the group misses an opportunity to achieve better understanding on both sides, which could positively inform any recommendations that the group might make. That is the group's decision to make.
George
On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> wrote:
Ok thanks. I was also referring to George's comment where he said that there was no evidence......
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:27 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
Jeff,
Row 2 of the table was the general issue that was meant to include the instance you documented. If this does not cover what you mean, please suggest some edits.
Thanks avri
Issues doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzID d1utROosNU/edit?usp=sharing>
On 19-Apr-17 10:45, Jeff Neuman wrote:
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ cph-to-icann-board-24feb17-en.pdf and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/ marby-to-bunton-diaz-11apr17-en.pdf. I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing).
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. I do not think think this is the case.
The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported.
avri
--- 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
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ 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*
Yes, I did insert a couple of comments and will look to compare the letters to the chart to see if others are mixed. I really want to make sure that our comments exclude the policy staff who have been fantastic to work with and have not been the subject of the contracted party complaints. I believe in not only emphasizing the things that need improvement, but also recognizing the areas which I believe have improved dramatically. Unfortunately we use the label of “staff” when much of the comments are not intended for all staff. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 10:07 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> Cc: George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com>; avri doria <avri@apc.org>; ws2-staff_acct@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community Jeff - can you have a look at the issues table, and if there are specific systemic issues that aren't captured there so far, could you jot them in? thanks Jordan On 20 April 2017 at 07:38, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote: Thanks George. On the contracted parties letter they are pursuing this matter directly with ICANN staff as you can see. There will be a customer satisfaction survey and more dialogue which will be good. But to the extent that these examples are systemic, I agree that this group should work on making recommendations. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com<mailto:george.sadowsky@gmail.com>] Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 6:20 PM To: Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> Cc: avri doria <avri@apc.org<mailto:avri@apc.org>>; ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community Jeff, I think that I said "_if_ there is no evidence, then .... " or I certainly meant to say it. OK, if there is evidence then I guess there are two directions to consider. The first is to apply it to an issues list, as the group has done, and to build a more complete picture of what is going on, resulting eventually in recommendations for change. The second is to address the issues more directly by responding directly to staff questions so that there can be mutual understanding and at least partial resolution of the negative effects presented by the evidence. These aren't alternatives, but can be mixed in various ways. By not feeding evidence, however depersonalized, back to staff by engaging in a dialogue suggested by the questions that the staff asked of the group, IMHO the group misses an opportunity to achieve better understanding on both sides, which could positively inform any recommendations that the group might make. That is the group's decision to make. George
On Apr 19, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Jeff Neuman <jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com>> wrote:
Ok thanks. I was also referring to George's comment where he said that there was no evidence......
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 4:27 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
Jeff,
Row 2 of the table was the general issue that was meant to include the instance you documented. If this does not cover what you mean, please suggest some edits.
Thanks avri
Issues doc: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/12ihFgBE5lcVTfiL6wft9MsOqHaSSKnzID d1utROosNU/edit?usp=sharing>
On 19-Apr-17 10:45, Jeff Neuman wrote:
On that note, I know I have been out of the loop for a little bit of time, but what about the concerns raised by the contracted parties? See https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/cph-to-icann-board-24fe... and ICANN response just published https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/marby-to-bunton-diaz-11.... I did not necessarily see them reflected in the document but there are very real issues and specific evidence has been provided (though redacted essentially from this last letter to not engage in ICANN bashing).
Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514<tel:%2B1.703.635.7514> M: +1.202.549.5079<tel:%2B1.202.549.5079> @Jintlaw
-----Original Message----- From: ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of avri doria Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2017 1:56 PM To: ws2-staff_acct@icann.org<mailto:ws2-staff_acct@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ws2-staff_acct] Staff questionnaire to community
On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
In contrast, I think that what you, Jordan, are suggesting is that we start with a group of issues which are essentially hypotheses. I do not think think this is the case.
The issues were abstracted from the problems that people had reported.
avri
--- 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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<http://www.InternetNZ.nz> A better world through a better Internet
Hi George, On 19-Apr-17 08:47, George Sadowsky wrote:
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.
This can be confusing. Unless you are explicit about it. Since you are the Board liaison to the group, my assumption has been that all utterances not prefaced by some form of 'in my personal capacity' or 'without my board hat' are from the Board Liaison. It is not being a Board member so much as having an official charter from the Board for participation as liaison. Thanks avri --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
hi all, George: On 20 April 2017 at 00:47, George Sadowsky <george.sadowsky@gmail.com> wrote:
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 think since you are the board Liaison to this group, it would be helpful if you could choose one of two routes - to clearly identify when you ARE speaking for the board, or clearly identify when you AREN'T speaking for the board. That would help me, I don't know about others. :-)
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?
The issues table is a collection of problems.
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.
The call for wider input is seeking to collect that evidence, to validate whether the "problems" or "issues" are evidenced, or feelings of the sort that you mention, or dismissable.
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
That is the next step, but only in conjunction with ICANN staff as I noted yesterday and as Avri and I have been pushing for some months.
4. "stress test" the solutions through discussion based upon their ability to solve the existing problem and minimize any negative externalities that are produced
We haven't discussed that this far, but it makes perfect sense.
5. recommend implementation of the chosen solution
Following public comment, which we hope to run over the course of the Joburg meeting.
6. after implementation, observe the results of having implemented the solution and determine in real life whether the "stress testing" was accurate.
Assumed to be done following agreement to do so.
This is a model that starts with the evidence that there is a problem and goes on to devise solutions to address it.
I struggle to see the difference between this model and the model we have been following, as is probably clear from my interspersed comments above.
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.
I think the difference, George, is that I reject the idea that we are talking about hypotheticals. I've been as clear as I can be that anything which goes into the issues table has to be based on something *real that has happened or been witnessed*. You have proposed in your list of steps above being more liberal on that front than I have. We may be in a state of non-violent agreement.
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.
Quite. That is omitted in your list of six steps, but it isn't omitted in the work of this group. The co-rapporteurs of this group have engaged with the ICANN organisation since Hyderabad, making the point that "exchanges of letters" are not the way to have that dialogue. We need to be talking, people to people as it were. We made that point to Göran and the whole group at the CCWG plenary in Copenhagen and that was agreed as very necessary. Avri and I, along with Thomas, had a very constructive meeting with Patrick Dodson in Copenhagen following the plenary. Patrick has been allocated to this group by Theresa to work with us. Following up from that, Avri and I have had two calls with Patrick, Sam and Diane S, talking about getting more background info for our drafting efforts and imploring the ICANN staff to assign some further staff participants to this group. These have been constructive, open, friendly calls. All of the above has been discussed on calls of this group. It has been the start of a much more appropriate way of working together, one that (unlike throwing letters back and forth) has some chance of actually allowing for the benefits of dialogue, discussion and compromise to arise. It is absolutely my expectation that as we move through the process, we will keep being in close dialogue with staff and hopefully even closer. It is also my sincere hope that we can see more active direct participation by some staff in the work of the group directly, if the ICANN staff choose to take that approach.
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.
We do seem to be on the same page.
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.
I hope that the above discussion sets your mind at ease that at least I share the view that it's essential, and part of the plan. thanks Jordan
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=sharing
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> 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 <06-845%209428> gregshatanipc@gmail.com
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 6:19 PM, Jordan Carter <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> 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> 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
-- 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*
participants (5)
-
avri doria -
George Sadowsky -
Greg Shatan -
Jeff Neuman -
Jordan Carter