I’m very happy to criticize ICANN Org when they get it wrong (and they have, and I have, numerous times). In this case, they got it right. There was absolutely no reason to expect a different result. Indeed, there’s no basis for a different result, like it or not. (And I don’t particularly like it.). One might quibble about tone or phrasing, but the substance seems correct.

It may be fair to criticize the Inspection right, and it may be something to revisit as a potential change to the ICANN Bylaws. One would have to go back to CCWG Accountability, look at the purpose for which it was created and decide whether It was fit for (that) purpose. (My recollection is that the Inspection right was narrowly scoped, in order to give Decisional Participants the same rights granted to analogous stakeholders under California law.) But this is what it is.

That said, the lack of transparency here is still painful and frustrating and wrong. (This was just not the tool to get what was requested.) Even though there has now been more disclosure than would be typical in a corporate transaction, that seems to have come largely as a result of community pressure, and still leaves a lot to be desired.

As for the Empowered Community, it’s unfortunate that there wasn’t more thought and analysis afforded to this request before it was made. It doesn’t put the community in the best light. I don’t think there’s any damage, but it’s the kind of error that shouldn’t be repeated if we want the Empowered Community to be taken seriously. As Olivier pointed out on this morning’s call, this is the only EC-related right that can be exercised by a single Decisional Participant. That helps see it more like a glitch, and not a blot on the Empowered Community as a whole.

On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 3:48 PM Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:

> On Feb 5, 2020, at 9:29 PM, Roberto Gaetano <mail.roberto.gaetano@gmail.com> wrote:
> The irony is that we have spent years of heavy work by the whole community to free ICANN up from the ties with US government and replace this supervision by a multi-stakeholder body just to find out that the only body that can force disclosure by ICANN about discussions hidden from the community is a US court.
>
> Sad, very sad.

Indeed, it is very sad and very frustrating. The US government seems to have truly gotten over its desire to manage the Internet, and now we’ve got ICANN pulling them back in through this sort of childish behavior.

-Bill

_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.