[CCWG-ACCT] Issue Item 3
Edward Morris
egmorris1 at toast.net
Thu Apr 7 13:47:12 UTC 2016
Hi everybody,
I am writing with regard to issue 3, reiterating my request on the call
today to change could to should in paragraph 2 of the CCWG Response to
Issue 3 contained in the document "CCWG Response - Bylaws - Questions
6Apr16V2.pdf.
The goal is to make it clear that requesting parties may challenge through
appropriate channels any and all redactions made by the Board in
information released via either recording or transcript from the
Reconsideration process. Some parties have had difficulty in the past
obtaining information using the DIDP, where seemingly reasonable
restrictions on information release contained in the Defined Conditions of
Nondisclosure (listed here:
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en ) have allegedly
been used in an expanded way by Board and staff to decrease organisational
transparency. DCND/DIDP appeals procedures have proven to be unnecessarily
opaque and operationally unsatisfactory. We want to avoid that here.
Section 22.7.e of the April 2nd Bylaws proposal, relating to Inspection,
may serve as a model for form if not content. It may be appropriate to
direct appeals off this nature directly to an I.R.P. but I would not to be
opposed if the whole canalopy of accountability mechanisms become available
to the requestor. The goal is simply to make it crystal clear that the
Board's decision to redact is subject to challenge, the perhaps sensitive
sensitive nature of the information not precluding same.
Thanks for considering,
Ed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160407/c79e0d6f/attachment.html>
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list