[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading)
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
Wed Jan 6 18:09:35 UTC 2016
Not only are we not special -- but the statutory rights that apply have been reasonably well-defined. I can see no reason to accept the Board's position here
Paul
Paul Rosenzweig
paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
O: +1 (202) 547-0660
M: +1 (202) 329-9650
VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
Skype: paul.rosenzweig1066
Link to my PGP Key
-----Original Message-----
From: James Gannon [mailto:james at cyberinvasion.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 6, 2016 12:37 PM
To: Tapani Tarvainen <ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info>; accountability-cross-community at icann.org
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading)
Full support for Jordans position here.
As I have said previously inspection rights are in constant and normal use across other organisations, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel, we are not that special.
-James
On 06/01/2016, 5:31 p.m., "accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of Tapani Tarvainen" <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org on behalf of ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info> wrote:
>I find myself in full agreement with this.
>
>Tapani Tarvainen
>NCSG Chair
>
>On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 05:47:52PM +0100, Jordan Carter (jordan at internetnz.net.nz) wrote:
>
>> 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 R*ecommendation 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-communit
>> > y
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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 *
>_______________________________________________
>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
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community
mailing list