[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading)

[Paul Rosenzweig]

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 at 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 at cyberinvasion.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>; accountability-cross-community at 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 at icann.org on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of ncsg at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at internetnz.net.nz
>> Skype: jordancarter
>> Web: www.internetnz.nz
>> 
>> *A better world through a better Internet *
>_______________________________________________
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community