[info] Introducing the New Accountability Indicators - ICANN Blog

[Zakir Syed]

Thank you Nick, I agree with you when you say "a response welcoming this initiative and including some positive recommendations for refining the approach could be a good step to encourage further transparency across ICANN's operations and activity going forward."
Best, 
Zakir

 

      From: Nick Shorey <lists at NICKSHOREY.COM>
 To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
 Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 2:07 AM
 Subject: Re: [info] Introducing the New Accountability Indicators - ICANN Blog
   
Hi all,
I've now had a chance to review the Accountability Metrics, and have a couple of additional thoughts.
I don't think we should reject these outright, as I feel this is a welcome and important first step in making ICANN a more transparent organisation, and we should encourage further efforts to this end.
I agree with Paul and Zakir that the term 'Accountability' may be a little misleading in the context that we understand it within the IANA transition work, and these do look more like performance indicators, but I get the intent to provide insight on the activities taking place.
Whilst I believe overall the metrics are looking at roughly the right areas - I agree some of the metrics seem a bit out-of-focus, particularly around outreach and engagement. It might simply be a case that there is insufficient data at this stage, but we might consider recommendations regarding the IMPACT of initiatives, i.e. an outreach and engagement event in Kenya resulted in 56% of participants joining a CCWG.
Ayden makes a good point around goals - and this is certainly an area we could recommend more information.  For example, how does the target of a 3-5% increase in remote participation relate to the budget allocation for this activity? If the budget for 17/18 was to be double what it was for 16/17, perhaps the target should also be revised upwards. Insights like this would vastly improve our understanding of ICANN's efforts in specific areas.
I think a response welcoming this initiative and including some positive recommendations for refining the approach could be a good step to encourage further transparency across ICANN's operations and activity going forward.
Kind regards,
Nick
Nick ShoreyPhone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988Email: lists at nickshorey.comSkype: nick.shoreyTwitter: @nickshoreyLinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedinWeb: www.nickshorey.com
On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Zakir Syed <00000206f69697ca-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu> wrote:

I agree with Paul and Ayden. After looking at some of these, I think they are not about accountability at all. These could be effectiveness and performance indicators though but calling they accountability indicators makes it confusing and meaningless. 

Also, IMHO, its better we forward this discussion to "accountability-indicators- feedback at icann.org" as feedback hoping for a revised, better, and clear version instead of "rejecting" them which I am not sure if we as NCSG can as Paul also mentioned below. 

Best, 
Zakir


      From: Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@ REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM>
 To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU 
 Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 7:18 PM
 Subject: Re: [info] Introducing the New Accountability Indicators - ICANN Blog
   
I don’t know if we as NCSG have authority to “reject” these indicators, but I agree completely with Ayden that many of these are not really indicators of anything meaningful.  Many of them are not about ICANN’s “accountability” in the sense of its accountability to the multi-stakeholder community but about something else.  I am glad, for example, that community digital services have had a 100% uptime for the last 90 days – but why that is an accountability metric (as opposed to a performance metric) is not clear.    One thing is, however, clear – you get what you measure.  If THESE are the metrics then THESE are the things that ICANN staff will focus on.  To the extent they aren’t very helpful, this portends some wasted effort.  CheersPaul  Paul Rosenzweigpaul.rosenzweig@ redbranchconsulting.comO: +1 (202) 547-0660M: +1 (202) 329-9650VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739www.redbranchconsulting.comMy PGP Key: https://keys.mailvelope.com/ pks/lookup?op=get&search= 0x9A830097CA066684  From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV. SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Saturday, September 9, 2017 8:11 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [info] Introducing the New Accountability Indicators - ICANN Blog  These are embarrassingly meaningless metrics. I have just reviewed them (which takes more time than it should, given the clunky interface) and they tell me very little about ICANN. For instance, you measure "community activity in policy development" by measuring the number of opportunities for formal public comments to be submitted? (Not the number of people who submit comments, but the number of times you open an issue up to comment?) And many of the goals are insufficiently unambitious. The target (which, incidentally, was not met), was 300 people using the ICANN Learn platform in Q2? How does ICANN justify having two or more full-time staff managing this tool then, given how little it is utilised? The tool is also inaccurate; look at the world map on indicator 5.3. It does not reflect ICANN's own geographic regions framework. These "accountability indicators" are window dressing, and I think we should reject them.  —Ayden     
-------- Original Message --------Subject: [info] Introducing the New Accountability Indicators - ICANN BlogLocal Time: 8 September 2017 2:46 AMUTC Time: 8 September 2017 01:46From: rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COMTo: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU  Hi all,  please find below an blog post explaining about ICANN accountability indicators.  Best,  Rafik  ---------- Forwarded message ----------    
https://www.icann.org/news/ blog/introducing-the-new- accountability-indicators Have you ever wondered how many events ICANN participates in by region and how many people we engage with? Or what is the state of ICANN's financials? Or how much is being spent on travel and meetings? Now you can find all of these answers and more on the beta version of our new Accountability Indicators page. It's a place where you can keep track of progress made against ICANN's strategic and operating plans. This is an evolution from our previous Key Performance Indicators (KPI) Dashboard. Based on feedback from the ICANN community, organization, and Board over the last couple of years, we have transformed the KPI Dashboard to better demonstrate the organization's accountability and transparency to the community. We recognize that ICANN is a unique organization, so market trends and industry benchmarks do not always apply. Other measures better demonstrate our progress, including perception measures such as satisfaction surveys and non-performance measures such as Board composition.We will update these indicators monthly. Initially, the page is in English, as we want to get your feedback right away. In the coming months, we will make the page available in the six U.N. languages. What's New?We've made several improvements to the data itself and are introducing a new interactive platform that makes the data easier to work with and understand. You can drill down to see data in more detail. For example, if you click a column in a chart, you'll see a cross-section of data, so you can hone in on what matters most to you. You can also download the underlying data. Your Feedback Is ImportantThis page serves provides a central place where you can clearly see progress made against the goals and objectives you set in ICANN's strategic and operating plans. We will continue to improve it, and your feedback is important. Please email questions or comments to accountabililty-indicators- feedback at icann.org. Author: Susanna Bennett, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, ICANN 

  

   



   
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170918/90f7f664/attachment.htm>