DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading)
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
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 R*ecommendation 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 Web: www.internetnz.nz *A better world through a better Internet *
I find myself in full agreement with this. Tapani Tarvainen NCSG Chair On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 05:47:52PM +0100, Jordan Carter (jordan@internetnz.net.nz) wrote:
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 R*ecommendation 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 Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
Full support for Jordans position here. As I have said previously inspection rights are in constant and normal use across other organisations, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we are not that special. -James On 06/01/2016, 5:31 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
I find myself in full agreement with this.
Tapani Tarvainen NCSG Chair
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 05:47:52PM +0100, Jordan Carter (jordan@internetnz.net.nz) wrote:
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 R*ecommendation 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 Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Not only are we not special -- but the statutory rights that apply have been reasonably well-defined. I can see no reason to accept the Board's position here Paul Paul Rosenzweig paul.rosenzweig@redbranchconsulting.com O: +1 (202) 547-0660 M: +1 (202) 329-9650 VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739 Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066 Link to my PGP Key -----Original Message----- From: James Gannon [mailto:james@cyberinvasion.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 12:37 PM To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info>; accountability-cross-community@icann.org Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading) Full support for Jordans position here. As I have said previously inspection rights are in constant and normal use across other organisations, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we are not that special. -James On 06/01/2016, 5:31 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen" <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org on behalf of ncsg@tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
I find myself in full agreement with this.
Tapani Tarvainen NCSG Chair
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 05:47:52PM +0100, Jordan Carter (jordan@internetnz.net.nz) wrote:
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 R*ecommendation 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-communit y
-- Jordan Carter
Chief Executive *InternetNZ*
+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob) Email: jordan@internetnz.net.nz Skype: jordancarter Web: www.internetnz.nz
*A better world through a better Internet *
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Exactly. More to the point, it is the touchstone of accountability. We should measure what is proposed, against what exists elsewhere. If it is found wanting, we should rethink. On 06/01/16 17:37, James Gannon wrote:
As I have said previously inspection rights are in constant and normal use across other organisations, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we are not that special.
I view this from a practical perspective, would Auerbach get the information now? el -- Sent from Dr Lisse's iPad mini
On 6 Jan 2016, at 20:33, Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> wrote:
Exactly. More to the point, it is the touchstone of accountability.
We should measure what is proposed, against what exists elsewhere.
If it is found wanting, we should rethink.
On 06/01/16 17:37, James Gannon wrote:
As I have said previously inspection rights are in constant and normal use across other organisations, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we are not that special.
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
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<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
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> [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<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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<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
+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> [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<mailto: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> [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<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen@icann.org<mailto:alice.jansen@icann.org>> Cc: accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto: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<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 ________________________________ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4489/11316 - Release Date: 01/03/16
Milton +1 Yes ? Inspection is generally practiced by all institution. It is some sort of verification and may not necessarily have a negative results as it may indicate the quality of the works done which could normally used to not only identify the shortcoming but propose /improvement and corrective measures Regards Kavouss Sent from my iPhone
On 8 Jan 2016, at 17:39, Phil Corwin <psc@vlaw-dc.com> wrote:
+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 Web: www.internetnz.nz
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 _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community / improvement
Dear all Just to clarify on the GAC as decisional participant. There has been a GAC consensus input into the public comment period (see attached and under http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-ccwg-accountability-proposal-30n...) where this issue is addressed under the following terms: == Establishing an empowered community for enforcing community powers (RECOMMENDATION 1) The GAC anticipates that it intends to participate in the proposed community mechanism with the following qualifications. The GAC would focus on participation in the processes of engagement and escalation detailed in Recommendation 2 with a view to supporting dialogue and mutual understanding that would lead to resolution of disputes rather than escalation. GAC participation would be primarily guided by a careful and prudent analysis of whether the issue under consideration has public policy and/or legal implications. The GAC’s participation at the enforcement stage as appropriate is still under discussion. == As in other constituencies, discussions will logically continue on this and other topics according to the existing timeline and whenever the final recommendations are on the table the GAC intends to provide a final assessment. But for the time being, the position expressed above by the GAC as a consensus input on December 21st is the position which should be considered in my view as “the GAC position”. Hope this is helpful Regards Jorge Von: accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Alice Jansen Gesendet: Mittwoch, 6. Januar 2016 15:53 An: accountability-cross-community@icann.org Betreff: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading) 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
participants (13)
-
Alice Jansen -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse -
Drazek, Keith -
James Gannon -
Jordan Carter -
Jorge.Cancio＠bakom.admin.ch -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Mueller, Milton L -
Nigel Roberts -
Paul Rosenzweig -
Phil Corwin -
Roelof Meijer -
Tapani Tarvainen