Dear All,

I thank you all very much for your sound , meaningful and valid arguments.

The discussion is reach and valuable.

I suggest we agree to establish or confirm the need to have "Srtanding Panel" with the meaning that it is a permanent structure .

As for the membership of that Standing Panel, further discussions are required . Currently ,based on the studies carried out by ICG, there are 13 Communities thus I do not understand where the " 9 members ) coming from

We also need to examine whether all 13 or whatever number of communities we agree would have equal footing or there may be some exceptions for SO and AC

We also need to confirm that an IPR is required

We need to formally indicate why some elements 7 provisions of Bylaw have not been implemented.

We need to mention that Recommendation( s) of current ATRT and outcome of Idependent Reviewe Panel shall be implemented unless Stnading Panel is convinced with the valid arguments and associated logic provided by the ICANN Board SUCH rECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE EXISTING LANGUAGE AND TERMS ARE NOT IMPLEMENTABLE AND NEED TO BE FURTHER AMENDED .

May we kindly take a darft structure based on what has been discussed and futher improve that structure

Regards

Kavouss

2015-01-31 14:41 GMT+01:00 Paul Rosenzweig <paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com>:

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@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. ....

_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community