[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris

[Kieren McCarthy]

I agree re: IRP, especially given the timely nature of the recent .Africa
decision.

As you are probably aware, significant portions of the final "independent"
report were redacted.

I got hold of the unredacted version and it shows that ICANN staff
systematically removed all mentions of the fact that it drafted a letter
for the AUC that it then accepted as evidence of sufficient support to sign
a contract with AUC's chosen applicant.

In other words, completely failed to act "neutrally and objectively with
integrity and fairness".

I find it all the more remarkable that these redactions happened last week,
in the middle of this accountability process.

Full story: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/15/icann_dot_africa_review/



Kieren


On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 4:22 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> While I do not see the risks in the same way Malcolm does, I do agree we
> need to give more time to IRP.  Not only is it a critical part of the
> puzzle, one that is in the news more and more, we have not really dealt
> with the issues that have come up in WP3 and elsewhere about IRP in
> terms of appealing staff actions and whether it can be use for appeals
> against an ACSO's [non]actions.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 15-Jul-15 05:22, Malcolm Hutty wrote:
> > Dear Chairs,
> >
> > I have just seen the proposed agenda for Paris, and I am concerned that
> > we will be devoting an excessive proportion of the time to the Community
> > Empowerment side, while leaving insufficient time to address the
> > extremely important issues on direct accountability, including in
> > particular IRP improvements.
> >
> > I see that we don't get to a session on the IRP until the afternoon of
> > the second day, when only an hour is scheduled, plus a half-hour for
> > cross-check with CWG requirements.
> >
> > I both fear that this may not be enough, and also that this structure
> > will focus consideration of the models excessively on how the deliver
> > community empowerment and marginalise consideration of their effect on
> > direct accountability.
> >
> > I had hoped that the paper analysing Stress Test 23 would be added to
> > the reading list (see url [1]), which shows potential weaknesses in our
> > IRP proposal. I would encourage colleagues to read it (or at least look
> > at the diagram!).
> >
> > I would like to ask you for the opportunity to present this paper during
> > the Stress Test session on Friday morning.
> >
> > [1] http://tinyurl.com/pnnxuyr
> >
> > Kind Regards,
> >
> > Malcolm Hutty.
> >
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150715/2c706fca/attachment.html>