[CCWG-ACCT] An mplication of accountability models being discussed

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse]

George,

Jonathan's list is quite an excellent start, much better then mine dealing with examples (by detail).


Sometimes I think the Board develops a bunker mentality, ie we 15/17/19 (or however many) Board Members are right, so everybody else must be wrong. I have used much choicer words for this transformation that Board Members seem to go through, by the way.

But, why on earth do you people not ask yourselves why there is no trust in you (the Board)? 

el
-- 
Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini

> On Jul 12, 2015, at 12:49, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at actonline.org> wrote:
> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Failed thus far to develop binding accountability mechanisms.
> 
> 2. Failed to adhere to policies around publication of documents prior to meetings.
> 
> 3. Failed to prevent decision making prior to termination of comment periods.
> 
> 4. Developed no standard for review during the previous attempt at accountability reform (2006?)
> 
> 5. Failed to develop public metrics to hold ICANN institutions to account (such as contract compliance)
> 
> 6. Failed to listen to community consensus on singular/plural and controlled the outcome of the redress mechanisms through overly narrow mandate.
> 
> 7. Pushed ahead with new gTLD program despite a lack of operational readiness, again without consequences.
> 
> 8. Launched a staff lead review of the new gTLD program prior to any input from the community.
> 
> 9. Scheduled new round of applications (at least initially) prior to scheduled reviews.
> 
> 10. Failed to reign in the Net Mundial initiative despite community objection or specify any consequences for secret board resolutions, etc.
> 
> 11. Accepted the GC advice to protect the corporation instead of the public interest. 
> 
> 12. Weakened rather than strengthened the IRP. 
> 
> 13. Allowed staff to unilaterally change community agreement on registry agreements and imposed the unilateral right to amend registry agreements. 
> 
> 14. Failed to implement half of the ATRT1 recommendations, again without consequences.
> 
> 15. Supported the practice of passing off all responsibility to third parties so ICANN has no risk. (.SUCKS is the latest example)
> 
> 16. First attempted to prevent an accountability component to the IANA transition and then tried to control it, insert experts, etc. rather than trusting the community to organize itself.
> 
[...]