[CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability

[Alan Greenberg]

I'm all for calling the Board out when they have messed up. But let's 
work with facts and not those developed through a game of "broken 
telephone" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers).

There is no doubt that the Board neglected to quickly name the 
standing panel, but it was not "unexecuted for years", nor was the 
failure "called out in ATRT1 and ATRT2".

Based on my review of the documents and my personal involvement, the 
sequence was:

- ATRT1 Recommendation 23 called for a review of the IRP as well 
other review mechanisms.

- That was done and as a result, new Bylaws were approved which did 
call for the Board to appoint a standing panel. Those Bylaws went 
into effect 11 April 2013.

- DCA served notice of the intent to seek relief before an IRP on 19 
August 2013.

- For reasons unrelated to the DCA action, ATRT2 (of which I was a 
member and vice-chair) in its recommendations issued on 31 December 
2013 recommended that ICANN should convene a Special Community Group 
to discuss options for improving Board accountability with regard to 
restructuring of the Independent Review Process (IRP) and the 
Reconsideration Process (ATRT2 Recommendation 9.2). The 
CCWG-Accountability is that group.

Alan

At 30/01/2015 10:37 PM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

>..... Now I see that we have at least one case scenario where a 
>Bylaw mandate has gone unexecuted for years, despite e.g. the 
>failure being called out in ATRT1 and ATRT2.  ....