[CCWG-ACCT] Further Objection to the Methodology

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

Yes, it was.

But, you agree, that this is an Accountability issue, ie one for the CCWG?

el

-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Apr 16, 2015, at 18:49, Steve Crocker <Steve at shinkuro.com> wrote:
> 
> [Resending with a crucial word added, though I hope the intent was clear nonetheless.] 
> 
> El,
> 
> Your characterization of the due diligence process for delegations and re-delegations is inaccurate.  The Board pays close attention to each and every one of these actions.  Over time, a process has evolved which puts the majority of the burden on the staff, thereby resulting in checklist, but the Board does not blindly accept the paperwork and has pushed back or questioned the action if there is anything that appears amiss.
> 
> That said, the Board does NOT want to be in the position of making primary decisions about delegations and re-delegations, nor should it be.  We need a more robust process.  The Framework of Interpretation is one positive step in that direction.
> 
> Steve Crocker
> Chair, ICANN Board of Directors
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150417/ea3f6b13/attachment.html>