[CCWG-ACCT] Further Board feedback on Inspection rights

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Thanks for the reminder, Chris!

Rinalia



On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 5:04 AM, Chris LaHatte <chris.lahatte at icann.org>
wrote:

> It is worth noting my powers to inspect as well in this context.
>
> The ombudsman in Clause 3
>
> " 3. have the right to have access to (but not to publish if otherwise
> confidential) all necessary information and records from ICANN staff and
> constituent bodies to enable an informed evaluation of the complaint and to
> assist in dispute resolution where feasible (subject only to such
> confidentiality obligations as are imposed by the complainant or any
> generally applicable confidentiality policies adopted by ICANN);"
>
> So there has been much discussion about access to documents, but in the
> context of a complaint by the community I have that power. I am surprised
> this has been rarely used.
>
>
>
> Chris LaHatte
> Ombudsman
> Blog  https://omblog.icann.org/
> Webpage http://www.icann.org/en/help/ombudsman
>
>
> Confidentiality
> All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential.
> The Ombudsman shall also take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve
> the
> privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the
> complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman.The Ombudsman shall only make
> inquiries about, or advise staff or Board members of the existence and
> identity of, a complainant in order to further the resolution of the
> complaint.  The Ombudsman shall take all reasonable steps necessary to
> ensure that if staff and Board members are made aware of the existence and
> identity of a complainant, they agree to maintain the confidential nature
> of
> such information, except as necessary to further the resolution of a
> complaint
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org
> [mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> Tonkin
> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 10:25 PM
> To: Accountability Cross Community
> <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further Board feedback on Inspection rights
>
>
> First, the Board agrees with an inspection right that limited to accounting
> books and records.  The Board also agrees that the inspection right can be
> invoked by a single SO or AC.  The inspection right, however, does not need
> to be a right reserved to the Sole Designator.  As explained in the Board's
> Comments on the Third Draft Proposal, the inspection right should be a
> community right, and not a right reserved to the Sole Designator.   Giving
> the Sole Designator a right of inspection - as opposed to making it a right
> held by the community - represents a significant and inappropriate change
> to
> the Sole Designator.   The Sole Designator can be used to enforce the
> community's right of inspection (through the escalation process, if ICANN
> errs in response).   Particularly when a single SO or AC could invoke the
> inspection right, requiring that demand to go through a community process
> to
> direct the Sole Designator seems to add complexity that is not necessary.
>
> The Board therefore recommends changing the words of Paragraph 20 to "the
> CCWG-Accountability recommends including in the ICANN Bylaws the right for
> SOs or ACs to inspect as outlined in California Corporations Code 6333,
> although this specific article reference would not be mentioned in the
> Bylaws."
>
> For Paragraph 21, "This inspection right is distinct from the Document
> Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). While any eligible party can file a
> request according to the DIDP, Inspection Rights are only accessible to SOs
> or ACs. The scopes are also different as explained below."  "Unlike the
> exercise of the other community powers, which require community engagement
> and escalation before initiating a request for action by the EC, the
> CCWG-Accountability recommends that a petition for inspection be brought
> directly by a single SO/AC or by multiple SO/ACs through making a written
> demand on ICANN for the requested materials. If the Board refused or
> ignored
> the request, the petitioning SO/AC(s) could then initiate an escalating
> community decision-making process to enforce the demand on the Board,
> requiring community consensus."
>
>
> The Board agrees with the inclusion of an investigation right, and notes
> that the language proposed in the redline reflects the Board's comments.
>
> Finally, the Board reaffirms its commitment to addressing improvements to
> the DIDP in WS2, and thanks the CCWG for the clarification in the document
> on the differences between the inspection right and the DIDP.
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
>
> Board Liaison to the CCWG
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160115/b55f2dc7/attachment.html>