[CCWG-ACCT] Reference for legal subteam

Bruce Tonkin Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au
Wed Apr 8 23:59:08 UTC 2015

Hello Kieran,

>>  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.

Bruce Tonkin

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list