<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, Sans-Serif; font-size: 12px"><div>Hi everybody,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I am writing with regard to issue 3, reiterating my request on the call today to change <i>could </i>to <em>should</em> in paragraph 2 of the CCWG Response to Issue 3 contained in the document "CCWG Response - Bylaws - Questions 6Apr16V2.pdf.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Thanks for considering,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Ed</div>
<div style="-webkit-touch-callout: none; -webkit-user-select: none; -khtml-user-select: none;-moz-user-select: none;-ms-user-select: none;-o-user-select: none;user-select: none;"> </div></span>