+1. In agreement as well that a high threshold is undesirable.

 

Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal

Virtualaw LLC

1155 F Street, NW

Suite 1050

Washington, DC 20004

202-559-8597/Direct

202-559-8750/Fax

202-255-6172/cell

 

Twitter: @VlawDC

 

"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Drazek, Keith
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 11:07 AM
To: Mueller, Milton L; Roelof Meijer; Jordan Carter; Alice Jansen
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 ­ Inspection Rights (first reading)

 

I agree with Jordan and Milton on this point.

 

I also agree with Roelof that there needs to be a balance of protections against “weird and irresponsible behavior” no matter where it comes from, but I don’t see the inspection rights/transparency issue undermining that goal.

 

Regards,

Keith

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mueller, Milton L
Sent: Friday, January 08, 2016 10:42 AM
To: Roelof Meijer; Jordan Carter; Alice Jansen
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 ­ Inspection Rights (first reading)

 

Roelof

Inspection rights are not comparable to removal of a board member, or vetoing a budget, or other powers which could have immediate negative impact on the functions of the corporation. It merely provides information. And while there are costs to complying with inspection requests, there are also costs, in terms of time and effort, to getting an AC or SO to request it. When it comes to transparency we need to tilt the balance toward openness. I have trouble understanding this high threshold argument.

 

--MM

 

From: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:29 AM
To: Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>
Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 ­ Inspection Rights (first reading)

 

Jordan, all,

 

We’re taking measures (forming powers and designing processes) to protect the internet community (and the “global public interest”) against all kinds of “weird and irresponsible” behavior by the board and never accepted a “the board will never do this” or “this will never happen” as an argument to do nothing. Look at our stress tests…

So we should understand –and in fact accept and incorporate- that the board seeks to protect the community and the “global public interest’ against “weird and irresponsible" behavior from parts of the community.

 

Your "As a matter of practical effect, the requirement that an SO or AC agree the request will by itself prevent vexatious or over-frequent use. There is no chance of, say, the ccNSO Council, randomly & inappropriately deciding to exercise such a right.” is an opinion, not a fact.

 

My opinion is that, yes, there should be a significant threshold, there’s ample proof that parts of the community tend to micro manage ICANN

 

Best,

 

Roelof

 

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz>
Date: woensdag 6 januari 2016 17:47
To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org>
Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading)

 

Hi all

 

Just a quick note to say I much prefer the lawyers' proposed approach on inspection rights, and do not support the Board's proposal.

 

As a matter of principle, the use of these rights is most likely to help inform a decision about using the other community powers. Using the same process as that which applies to those community powers is overkill: this *should* be a simpler process.

 

As a matter of practical effect, the requirement that an SO or AC agree the request will by itself prevent vexatious or over-frequent use. There is no chance of, say, the ccNSO Council, randomly & inappropriately deciding to exercise such a right.

 

So since the practical fears the Board noted aren't really valid, and since there is wide agreement as far as I can tell about the importance of these rights, in my opinion we should go with what our lawyers have suggested here, and be clear with the language in the next version of our document.  That's the most workable and straight forward approach IMO.

 

 

best

Jordan

 

 

On 6 January 2016 at 15:53, Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org> wrote:

Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs

 

In preparation for your Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading) discussion scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC) - please find attached the material to review. 

Please use this email thread to circulate any comments you may have in advance of the call.

 

Thank you

 

Mathieu, Thomas, León


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



 

--

Jordan Carter

Chief Executive 
InternetNZ


+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz 
Skype: jordancarter


A better world through a better Internet 

 

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16