[CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear All,
I thank you all very much for your sound , meaningful and valid arguments.
The discussion is reach and valuable.
I suggest we agree to establish or confirm the need to have "Srtanding
Panel" with the meaning that it is a permanent structure .
As for the membership of that Standing Panel, further discussions are
required . Currently ,based on the studies carried out by ICG, there are 13
Communities thus I do not understand where the " 9 members ) coming from
We also need to examine whether all 13 or whatever number of communities we
agree would have equal footing or there may be some exceptions for SO and
AC
We also need to confirm that an IPR is required
We need to formally indicate why some elements 7 provisions of Bylaw have
not been implemented.
We need to mention that Recommendation( s) of current ATRT and outcome of
Idependent Reviewe Panel shall be implemented unless Stnading Panel is
convinced with the  valid arguments and associated  logic  provided by the
ICANN  Board  SUCH rECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AND TERMS ARE
NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND NEED TO BE FURTHER AMENDED .
May we kindly take a darft structure based on what has been discussed and
futher improve that structure
Regards
Kavouss


2015-01-31 14:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>:

> 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.  ....
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150131/949b9c01/attachment.html>