[CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability

[Alan Greenberg]

Paul, I did not say that.

I corrected the multiple errors of fact in the sound-bite. I have a 
quirky position that I like to make decisions based on fact and not 
innuendo or hyperbole.

I have no idea whether the panel has since been convened or not - I 
have not checked.

If something the Board is obliged to do goes undone and if there is 
not a sound rationale for taking that path, it does not comfort me. 
But that is not the same as deliberately failing to do something for 
years and that has been cited in multiple ATRT reports.

Alan

At 31/01/2015 08:41 AM, Paul Rosenzweig wrote:

>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.  ....