[CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability

[Paul Rosenzweig]

So you are saying that a bylaw mandate has gone unfulfilled for 21 months. Does that comfort you?
--
Paul
Sent from myMail app for Android
Saturday, 31 January 2015, 01:40AM -05:00 from Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>:
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.  ....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150131/95a7c431/attachment.html>