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<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan@internetnz.net.nz<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>> Date: woensdag 6 januari 2016 17:47 To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Cc: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto: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<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz> Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz<http://www.internetnz.nz> A better world through a better Internet