I think there is a middle ground here: allow staff presence as observers
and even commenters, but not in any way as decision-makers.  Staff does
have a unique perspective, and if addressed in good faith that can be
useful to the process overall.  But part of the reason we're having a
process to address staff accountability is that there is widespread
distrust of staff as having acted in bad faith, in enough instances to make
a difference.

Staff are paid employees whereas everyone else at ICANN is in volunteer
roles.  That gives staff a special and powerful advantage at ICANN in
steering policy implementation (and even policy decisions themselves) in
ways that can escape the intent of the policy-making process.

Staff are certainly stakeholders in the employer/employee relationship
(wages/benefits, working conditions, etc.).  I see no reason they should be
considered stakeholders in the Internet policy-making process, unless as
Nicolas noted they choose to participate in one of the SOACs as individuals
(i.e., "citizen voters").

It just is institutionally dysfunctional to allow a decision-making role
for staff in this context, a direct conflict of interest when we're talking
about an accountability process that seeks to hold staff accountable (they
have a structural incentive to avoid accountability, to push back against
it wherever possible).

In political science this is called the "Principal/Agent Problem" and it is
confounded exponentially when agents find ways to act as principals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal%E2%80%93agent_problem

We (or rather, the Board) didn't hire ICANN staff to make ICANN policy.
That's not (or at least shouldn't be) part of their job description.  Can
you point me to a clause in any ICANN document where it suggests staff
should be involved in deciding Internet policy (including staff
accountability policy) at ICANN?

If the policy process is engaged in good faith by the SOACs etc., then the
working group would do well to solicit input from staff on various matters
of *operational* relevance.  That's just "good management".  But allowing
staff to have actual political, *substantive*, representation in the design
of accountability at ICANN doesn't make any sense to me.

Dan


--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.




At 4:13 PM -0400 8/15/14, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>
>I can tell we have a gulf between us.  I seem to be on side of the
>issue, while the rest of you seem to be on the other.
>
>I personally do not understand how anyone can deny the stakeholder
>nature of staff.  Not only are the logically part of the general user
>community, they are as affected as anyone by what ICANN does.  The Board
>can decide to give itself a salary and a raise, but we cannot let a
>worker participate in giving advice on accountability solutions?  Why
>does going to work for ICANN mean they give up their rights as part of
>the global internet community, especially among groups of other
>stakeholders who, for the most part, are primarily concerned with how to
>maximize profits.
>
>It is almost as if we want to say that employees should never have seats
>on the board of a company they work in.  And yet in labor relations this
>is considered an achievement, because the worker, the staff member, has
>rights too - sometimes rights that can only be explained properly by
>another staff members.
>
>I do not see how one staff person in a coordination group of 18 having a
>controlling vote in any way.  I worry more about the ones behind the
>scene that I can't see or hear.
>
>avri