AT-LARGE GATEWAY

At-Large Website

ALAC

RALOs

At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)

At-Large Governance

At-Large Reports

Policy Comments & Advice

Working Groups

ICANN Meetings

At-Large Summit (ATLAS III)

At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development

ALAC and RALO Elections, Selections, and Appointments

At-Large Priority Activities - 2021

Public Comment CloseStatement
Name 

Status

Assignee(s)

Call for
Comments Open		Call for
Comments
Close 		Vote OpenVote CloseDate of SubmissionStaff Contact and EmailStatement Number


14 January 2018


Recommendations to Improve ICANN Staff Accountability


ADOPTED

13Y, 0N, 0A


Maureen Hilyard

Bastiaan Goslings

Ricardo Holmquist


08 January 2018


11 January 2018


12 January 2018


18 January 2018


12 January 2018


Patrick Dodson
patrick.dodson@icann.org


AL-ALAC-ST-0118-02-01-EN

Hide the information below, please click here 


Brief Overview

Purpose: This Public Comment seeks community input on the CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2 (WS2) draft recommendations on ICANN Staff Accountability. These draft recommendations were developed by the CCWG-Accountability as required by Annex 12 of the final report of the Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, Work Stream 1 (CCWG-Accountability, WS1).

Current Status: The CCWG-Accountability reviewed these draft recommendations at its 11 October 2017 plenary meeting and approved their publication to gather public comments.

Next Steps: Following the public comment period the inputs will be analyzed by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 who will consider amending the recommendations in light of the comments received and will publish a report on the results of the public consultation. If significant changes are required as a result of the public consultation the CCWG-Accountability WS2 may decide to not include these recommendations in its final report given it must complete its work by June 2018. If there are no significant changes required, the CCWG-Accountability WS2 will include these in its final report and forward it to its Chartering Organizations for approval and then to the ICANN Board for consideration and adoption.

Section I: Description and Explanation

The CCWG-Accountability-WS2 on ICANN Staff Accountability project obtains its mandate and scope from ICANN bylaws and the CCWG-Accountability, WS1 Final report which included Recommendation 12 the following:

As part of Work Stream 2, the CCWG-Accountability proposes that further enhancements be made to a number of designated mechanisms:

  • Staff Accountability

Annex 12, which details Recommendation 12, also included the following recommendations with regards to Staff Accountability:

In general, management and staff work for the benefit of the community and in line with ICANN's purpose and Mission. While it is obvious that they report to and are held accountable by the Board and the President & CEO, the purpose of their accountability is the same as that of the organization:

  • Complying with ICANN's rules and processes.
  • Complying with applicable Bylaws.
  • Achieving certain levels of performance, as well as security.
  • Making their decisions for the benefit of the community and not in the interest of a particular stakeholder or set of stakeholders or ICANN the organization alone.

Having reviewed and inventoried the existing mechanisms related to staff accountability, areas for improvement include clarifying expectations from staff as well as establishing appropriate redress mechanisms. 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 ICANNcommunity. 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.

Section II: Background

The group adopted the definition of "accountability" used by the board and organization in its development of the board resolution on delegated authorities, passed in November 2016. Accountability in this context is defined, according to the NETmundial multistakeholder statement, as "the existence of mechanisms for independent checks and balances as well as for review and redress."

The focus of this group was to assess "staff accountability" and performance at the service delivery, departmental, or organizational level, and not at the individual, personnel level.

The group's work was a combination of problem-centered analysis as well as solution-focused exploration, with the goal of identifying any gaps to address as part of an effort to create a comprehensive system of checks and balances, based on the assessment of tools and systems currently or newly in place. The group considered the roles and responsibilities of ICANN's Board, staff and community members and the links between them, sought input on issues or challenges relating to staff accountability matters, and assessed existing staff accountability processes in ICANN.

In general, these efforts revealed an extensive accountability system both within ICANNorganization as well as in the mechanisms of review and redress afforded the Community, including the Board's role, the Empowered Community Powers, Complaints Office, and Office of the Ombuds. 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.

Section III: Relevant Resources



Section IV: Additional Information


Supporting Documents

Section V: Reports

Staff Contact

Patrick Dodson
patrick.dodson@icann.org

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 


 

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.


The ALAC commends the CCWG-Accountability for their recommendations which: 1) identify how ICANN can better address contentious issues; 2) suggest mechanisms that can aid more effective and collaborative relationships between the staff and the community; and 3) 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.

It was appreciated that recommendations from WS1 had already been addressed by ICANN. For example, "ICANN's Delegation of Authority" details the powers vested in ICANN staff, and the "ICANN Expected Standards of Behavior" is regarded as a Code of Conduct. The ALAC notes that, moving forward, ICANN will aim to improve the visibility and transparency of the ICANN's accountability mechanisms and of staff training related to their implementation. The recommendation that these will be published on the ICANN website will give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.  

The ALAC also commends the development of a "cross-community" panel, involving the Ombudsman and the Complaints Officer as well as representatives of the Empowered Community and the ICANN Board, to deal more holistically with any contentious staff accountability issues. 

 

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.


The ALAC commends the CCWG-Accountability 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.

It was appreciated that recommendations from WS1 had already been addressed by ICANN, for example, "ICANN's Delegation of Authority" to detail the powers vested in ICANN staff, and the "ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour" as a Code of Conduct. The ALAC notes that, moving forward, ICANN will aim to improve the visibility and transparency of the ICANN's accountability mechanisms and of staff training related to their implementation. The recommendation that these will be published on the ICANN website will give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.  

The ALAC also commends the development of a "cross-community" panel, involving the Ombudsman and the Complaints Officer as well as representatives of the Empowered Community and the ICANN Board, to deal more holistically with any contentious staff accountability issues. 

7 Comments

  1. Ariel Liang

    Comment from Maureen Hilyard after she has reviewed the public comment

    ==

    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

    1. Ariel Liang

      Reply from Bastiaan Goslings to Maureen's comment above

      ==

      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?

  2. 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.

  3. Maureen Hilyard

    Hi Bastiaan - I had hoped we'd get more people jumping in with some comments, but this is not to be. My brief take on your queries then. 

    Regarding the powers vested in ICANN staff, I expect these are already set out in the "ICANN's Delegation of Authority" which is mentioned in the report.  I believe that although some areas to be considered may not be mentioned in the report, they do exist - for example a Code of Conduct under the heading of "ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour" was (re-)adopted in June 2016. While performance indicators are not listed, greater transparency with regards to community expectations of staff performance are highlighted in the report and the suggestion of the "cross-community" panel as a mechanism to deal with more demanding issues,  shares the responsibility of monitoring of staff across key sectors of the ICANN organisation and includes the Board.  The WS2 recommendations are the notice to the community about the expectations which are being made of the ICANN Organisation which includes the CEO and all his staff (smile)

    We are really close to date due, so If you feel that a comment is needed to address these issues, then feel free to create a statement that incorporates them. We could perhaps indicate that we have noted that the recommendations of the WS1 report had been addressed.

  4. Ricardo Holmquist

    Hi all,

    the only point I may add is to the recommendations, point 1.b, where the recommendation should encourage ICANN not only to publish on its web site, but also to train the staff regularly on the items described on point 1.a of the recommendations.

  5. Maureen Hilyard

    Thank you Ricardo and Bastiaan. I hope I have appropriately incorporated your concerns into this statement. I like the "team effort". Feel free to add, delete, amend anything within it... 


    The ALAC commends the CCWG-Accountability 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.

    It was appreciated that recommendations from WS1 had already been addressed by ICANN, for example, "ICANN's Delegation of Authority" to detail the powers vested in ICANN staff, and the "ICANN Expected Standards of Behaviour" as a Code of Conduct. The ALAC notes that, moving forward, ICANN will aim to improve the visibility and transparency of the ICANN's accountability mechanisms and of staff training related to their implementation. The recommendation that these will be published on the ICANN website will give more clarity for stakeholders on staff performance and accountability.  

    The ALAC also commends the development of a "cross-community" panel, involving the Ombudsman and the Complaints Officer as well as representatives of the Empowered Community and the ICANN Board, to deal more holistically with any contentious staff accountability issues. 

  6. Eduardo Diaz

    The recommendations is well rounded. The challenge will be to make sure that it gets implemented in the way the working group foreseen it.