[CCWG-ACCT] Issue Item 3

[Edward Morris]

Hi everybody,
  
 I am writing with regard to issue 3, reiterating my request on the call 
today to change could to should in paragraph 2 of the CCWG Response to 
Issue 3 contained in the document "CCWG Response - Bylaws - Questions 
6Apr16V2.pdf.
  
 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.
  
 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.
  
 Thanks for considering,
  
 Ed
  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160407/c79e0d6f/attachment.html>