[CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability

[Paul Rosenzweig]

Fair enough -- then without the sound bite -- the Board has failed in what
appears to me to be a mandatory duty.  That disturbs me greatly .....  

**NOTE:  OUR NEW ADDRESS -- EFFECTIVE 12/15/14 ***
509 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com 
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
Skype: +1 (202) 738-1739 or paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca] 
Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 10:53 AM
To: Paul Rosenzweig
Cc: Robin Gross; Accountability Cross Community
Subject: Re[2]: [CCWG-ACCT] The big test of effective accountability

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.  ....