<HTML><BODY><p dir="ltr">So you are saying that a bylaw mandate has gone unfulfilled for 21 months. Does that comfort you?</p>
<p dir="ltr">--<br>
Paul<br>
Sent from myMail app for Android<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">Saturday, 31 January 2015, 01:40AM -05:00 from Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>:</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'm all for calling the Board out when they have messed up. But let's<br>
work with facts and not those developed through a game of "broken<br>
telephone" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers ).</p>
<p dir="ltr">There is no doubt that the Board neglected to quickly name the<br>
standing panel, but it was not "unexecuted for years", nor was the<br>
failure "called out in ATRT1 and ATRT2".</p>
<p dir="ltr">Based on my review of the documents and my personal involvement, the<br>
sequence was:</p>
<p dir="ltr">- ATRT1 Recommendation 23 called for a review of the IRP as well<br>
other review mechanisms.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- That was done and as a result, new Bylaws were approved which did<br>
call for the Board to appoint a standing panel. Those Bylaws went<br>
into effect 11 April 2013.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- DCA served notice of the intent to seek relief before an IRP on 19<br>
August 2013.</p>
<p dir="ltr">- For reasons unrelated to the DCA action, ATRT2 (of which I was a<br>
member and vice-chair) in its recommendations issued on 31 December<br>
2013 recommended that ICANN should convene a Special Community Group<br>
to discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to<br>
restructuring of the Independent Review Process (IRP) and the<br>
Reconsideration Process (ATRT2 Recommendation 9.2). The<br>
CCWG-Accountability is that group.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Alan</p>
<p dir="ltr">At 30/01/2015 10:37 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:</p>
<p dir="ltr">>..... Now I see that we have at least one case scenario where a<br>
>Bylaw mandate has gone unexecuted for years, despite e.g. the<br>
>failure being called out in ATRT1 and ATRT2. ....</p>
</BODY></HTML>