[CCWG-ACCT] Reference for legal subteam
Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Wed Apr 8 23:59:08 UTC 2015
>> But if the Board will open up the organization more to real accountability, then I think we can start avoiding the huge time and money suck of these reviews that have limited useful impact. Less navel gazing, more DNS fixing.
That is fine by me. I am actually looking forward to the improvements that will come out of this CCWG. This group has been particularly thorough and is also devoting a huge amount of time. As I think you have pointed out - the one risk is trying to tackle too much and not staying focused on a few critical changes that can be implemented relatively quickly. I would rather have a few changes worked out in detail that can go straight to implementation - rather than a high level series of statements such as review the reconsideration process and review the ombudsman function.
The Board doesn't make arbitrary changes to the accountability mechanisms on its own volition - it relies on the community process to recommend the changes, and the Board needs to make sure that we implement the outcomes effectively. I am focussed for example on making sure that the ARTR2 recommendations are implemented properly and that the implementation is subject to appropriate public review.
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community