[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.

Regards
Bruce Tonkin



More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list