[ALAC] ALAC statement on the WS2 Staff Accountability Recommendations?

[Maureen Hilyard]

Thanks for the comments Bastiaan. Nice to know someone read it.

My assumption was that anything from a previous Workstream would have been
taken into account by WS2, but thank you for raising it. We can get
clarification from Cheryl and Alan n case we need to include that into a
general comment.

M

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 9:38 PM, Bastiaan Goslings <
bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:

> Hi Maureen
>
> Thanks a lot - indeed, quite a ’short report’. Before I knew it I had read
> the 9 pages ;-)
>
> In itself I agree with your recommendation to commend the CCWG WS2 for
> their work. Happy to see they conclude:
>
> ‘The group found that many of the issues or concerns identified by the
> group will benefit from simply making existing mechanisms more transparent.
> The group has identified a few important changes that will further enhance
> these accountability mechanisms. The changes proposed are designed to work
> with existing systems and processes, and to help establish mechanisms to
> support continuous improvement within the ICANN system’
>
> The ‘changes proposed’, and which you summarise, sound fine to me. Nothing
> spectacular there.
>
> A question though, just to clarify.
>
> Looking at https://www.icann.org/public-comments/accountability-recs-
> 2017-11-13-en there is a copy/paste from the WS1 final report. There it
> says a.o.:
>
> ‘The CCWG-Accountability recommends as part of its Work Stream 2:
>
> • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to develop a document that
> clearly describes the role of ICANN staff vis-à-vis the ICANN Board and the
> ICANN community. This document should include a general description of the
> powers vested in ICANN staff by the ICANN Board of Directors that need, and
> do not need, approval of the ICANN Board of Directors.
> • The CCWG-Accountability work with ICANN to consider a Code of Conduct,
> transparency criteria, training, and key performance indicators to be
> followed by staff in relation to their interactions with all stakeholders,
> establish regular independent (internal and community) surveys and audits
> to track progress and identify areas that need improvement, and establish
> appropriate processes to escalate issues that enable both community and
> staff members to raise issues. This work should be linked closely with the
> Ombudsman enhancement item of Work Stream 2.’
>
> What do you think - do the recommendations we’re looking at actually live
> up to this?
>
> thanks again
> Bastiaan
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Nov 2017, at 07:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Greetings all
> >
> > Today, I was given responsibility to comment as to whether the ALAC
> needs to make a statement with regards to "The CCWG Accountability WS2,
> Staff Accountability Draft Recommendations, October 2017" (thankfully a
> short report).
> >
> > Here is a brief overview before my recommendation.
> >
> > The CCWG has identified changes that can be used alongside existing
> systems and processes not only to enhance ICANN's current processes but to
> support continuous improvement within it.  This is important from the
> perspective of At-Large and other ICANN communities,  as the primary role
> of the "ICANN Organisation" is to work alongside ICANN's volunteer
> community to gain their cooperation to assist with the work of ICANN, both
> directly and out in the field.
> >
> > A collaborative relationship with the Organisation is critical to the
> success of the work of volunteers within the ICANN system. Clear
> delegations, and open and well-communicated processes are critical to the
> success of any joint ventures.  The CCWG's recommendations outline actions
> that will contribute not only towards improving the visibility and
> transparency of the Organisation's existing accountability mechanisms but
> also to give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and
> accountability.
> >
> > One particular recommendation to address the issue of fairness in
> regards to any contentious issues that may be raised by the Empowered
> Community (EC), is the creation of a panel consisting of the Ombudsman, the
> Complaints Officer, a representative of the Empowered Community and a Board
> member. Each being able to contribute the views of their role to the
> situation and hopefully resolve it in a way that is acceptable to all.
> >
> > A final recommendation was that, in the interests of transparency and
> accountability, all service level guidelines and the final outcomes of the
> WG's recommendations should be published in a specific area of icann.org.
> >
> > My recommendation is that the ALAC does not need to make any statement
> other than to commend the CCWG for their recommendations which identify how
> ICANN can better address contentious issues; suggest mechanisms that can
> aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and
> the community; and provide greater clarity about roles and responsibilities
> as well as greater transparency and accountability in relation to ICANN's
> performance management and other evaluative processes.
> >
> > Maureen
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+
> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/attachments/20171123/9d8209f4/attachment.html>