[CCWG-ACCT] Staff accountability

[David Cake]

Eberhard has a point.

There are legitimate reasons for staff to want to not answer some questions - some personnel issues should remain confidential, some security issues should have disclosure delayed until the problem has been fixed or mitigated, etc.
The Ombudsman should have access to any internal document, and the discretion and training to decide what is reasonable to release. Why would a strengthened ombudsman not be a good fit for this role?

Regards
	David

	(my first post to CCWG Accountability - hi everybody)

> On 16 Jul 2015, at 2:03 pm, Dr Eberhard W Lisse <epilisse at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Cool, another Ombudsman.
> 
> el
> 
> --
> Sent from Dr Lisse's iPhone 5s
> 
> 
> On Jul 16, 2015, at 04:05, Phil Corwin <psc at vlaw-dc.com <mailto:psc at vlaw-dc.com>> wrote:
> 
>> How about an independent inspector general?
>> 
> [...]
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150717/37844897/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20150717/37844897/signature.asc>