[CCWG-ACCT] Agenda for Paris
seun.ojedeji at gmail.com
Thu Jul 16 11:43:52 UTC 2015
While i am also amazed at some of the revelations, the question that comes
to mind is "when the servant executes the wish of the master, who is to be
knocked on the head? on the other hand, when the servant goes on doing
what the master did not send him/her who is to be knocked on the head?
I think either of the case, the rouge staff should be brought to justice
which will include the CEO more (incase of the former). Overall the board
would be in the best position to carry out the legitimate will of the
community on staff. I am still of strong opinion that community should not
be in the accountability path of staff but rather the community should
mandate the board to do its job of keeping staff accountable on their roles
On Wed, Jul 15, 2015 at 10:25 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> On 2015-07-15 18:14, Kieren McCarthy wrote:
>> 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.
> I've generally supported Jonathan's view that we should concentrate on
> improving ICANN's accountability for its own sake,
> and not unnecessarily rake over old coals.
> However reading the .Africa ruling, I must say I was troubled. Some of
> the panel's findings seriously call into question the belief advanced by
> some of the "voluntarists" here that legally enforceability of
> measures is unnecessary as ICANN can be trusted to honour our
> proposals always in good faith.
> Kieren writes in his article:
> "The report contains no less than 39 redactions, many pulling out entire
>> paragraphs of text. The Register has seen a non-redacted version of
>> the report, and we can say that most of those redactions concern the fact
>> that ICANN's head of operations, Dai-Trang Nguyen, drafted a
>> letter that was then used by ICANN to advance a competing .africa bid.
> That's a serious allegation. Since we have Board members on this list,
> perhaps they could explain
> i) is this true?
> ii) if it is true, why did ICANN consider it appropriate to redact such
> information from the report of the IRP panel?
> In the meantime, I would note that this raises yet another issue with the
> IRP we have not yet considered,
> namely should we provide explicitly that the IRP is to publish its
> findings itself, and should it publish in full,
> entirely at its own discretion, or should we establish principles for the
> limits of transparency?
> Again (I believe) we have failed to consider this because we have
> concentrated excessively on the community
> measures to the exclusion of IRP issues.
> Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
> Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
> London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/
> London Internet Exchange Ltd
> 21-27 St Thomas Street, London SE1 9RY
> Company Registered in England No. 3137929
> Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng
<http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email:
<http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng
<seun.ojedeji at fuoye.edu.ng>*
The key to understanding is humility - my view !
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community