[info] Introducing the New Accountability Indicators - ICANN Blog
Matthew Shears
matthew at INTPOLICY.COM
Mon Sep 18 17:08:06 EEST 2017
Agree with Nick and Milton.
On 18/09/2017 13:59, Mueller, Milton L wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> I think Nick is right that we don’t want to come across as trashing
> them, but too much welcoming and not enough criticism will give ICANN
> the wrong signal. As someone with a lot of experience in how ICANN
> reacts to things, we’ve got to make it clear that their metrics are
> mostly missing the target.
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
>
> Professor, School of Public Policy
>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
>
> IGP_logo_gold block_email sig <http://www.internetgovernance.org/>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nick
>
>
> *Nick Shorey*
>
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
>
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
>
> Skype: nick.shorey
>
> Twitter: @nickshorey
>
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin>
>
> Web: www.nickshorey.com <http://www.nickshorey.com>
>
> On Sat, Sep 9, 2017 at 10:02 PM, Zakir Syed
> <00000206f69697ca-dmarc-request at listserv.syr.edu
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at REDBRANCHCONSULTING.COM>>
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto: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.
>
> Cheers
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Rosenzweig
>
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660 <tel:%28202%29%20547-0660>
>
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650 <tel:%28202%29%20329-9650>
>
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 <tel:%28202%29%20738-1739>
>
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
>
> My PGP Key:
> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <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
> <mailto: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 Blog
>
> Local Time: 8 September 2017 2:46 AM
>
> UTC Time: 8 September 2017 01:46
>
> From: rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>
>
> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto: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
> <https://www.icann.org/accountability-indicators>. 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 Important*
>
> This 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
> <mailto:accountabililty-indicators-feedback at icann.org>.
>
> Author: Susanna Bennett, Senior Vice President and Chief
> Operating Officer, ICANN
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free. www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>
>
> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
--
Matthew Shears
matthew at intpolicy.com
+447712472987
Skype:mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170918/4e815dd7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image002.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3867 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170918/4e815dd7/attachment.jpg>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list