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

[Kavouss Arasteh]

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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at 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 at 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 at icann.org [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Roelof Meijer
> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 10:29 AM
> To: Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>; Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Cc: accountability-cross-community at 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 at icann.org> on behalf of Jordan Carter <jordan at internetnz.net.nz>
> Date: woensdag 6 januari 2016 17:47
> To: Alice Jansen <alice.jansen at icann.org>
> Cc: "accountability-cross-community at icann.org" <accountability-cross-community at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community / improvement

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160108/c98fa3ee/attachment-0001.html>