[CCWG-ACCT] Regarding a standing panel for the independent review of Board actions

[Seun Ojedeji]

Dear Bruce,

Thanks a lot for trying to bridge the gap between the community and board,
if this level of communication can be achieved beyond this WG then you can
be sure that a lot can get done with dialogue. 2 things I like to clarify:

- Is there a documented reference (perhaps minutes) indicating that board
indeed approved the creation and are those documents public?
- If staff is unable to implement a board directive, is there a process by
which board ensure the implementation gets done OR at least a process by
which staff is made to document reasons why the implementation cannot be
done at a particular time. Also are such information accessible to the
community?

Regards

sent from Google nexus 4
kindly excuse brevity and typos.
On 1 Feb 2015 04:47, "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> With respect to clause of the bylaws:
>
> " 6. There shall be an omnibus standing panel of between six and nine
> members with a variety of expertise, including jurisprudence, judicial
> experience, alternative dispute resolution and knowledge of ICANN's mission
> and work from which each specific IRP Panel shall be selected.
>
> The panelists shall serve for terms that are staggered to allow for
> continued review of the size of the panel and the range of expertise. A
> Chair of the standing panel shall be appointed for a term not to exceed
> three years. Individuals holding an official position or office within the
> ICANN structure are not eligible to serve on the standing panel.
>
>  In the event that an omnibus standing panel:
>
> (i) is not in place when an IRP Panel must be convened for a given
> proceeding, the IRP proceeding will be considered by a one- or three-member
> panel comprised in accordance with the rules of the IRP Provider;
>
> or (ii) is in place but does not have the requisite diversity of skill and
> experience needed for a particular proceeding, the IRP Provider shall
> identify one or more panelists, as required, from outside the omnibus
> standing panel to augment the panel members for that proceeding."
>
>
> The Board approved the bylaw change and requested that the standing panel
> be established.   The bylaws provide for the situation where it is not YET
> established, but that doesn't mean that we should not have it established
> as others have pointed out.
>
>
> There has been no board decision not to establish the panel .
>
> I have heard information from a staff member that there were some
> difficulties getting the panel established through the current IRP provider.
>
> I have asked for an agenda item for the Board Governance committee meeting
> next week for the staff to provide an update, and I will then provide an
> update to this group on:
>
> - the reasons for the delay in establishing the standing panel
>
> - when the standing panel is expected to be in place
>
>
> As a Board member I am also working on tightening up our oversight that
> the outcomes from the AoC reviews are actually implemented as approved by
> the Board.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150201/17b29166/attachment.html>