+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
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
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
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
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.
--
Jordan Carter
Chief Executive
InternetNZ
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