[CCWG-ACCT] DOCUMENT - Recommendation 1 – Inspection Rights (first reading)

[Alan Greenberg]

I tend to take an in-between position. I support 
a simpler process, but one AC/SO is simply not sufficient.

In the Single Member model, it would have 
required the Member to act which presumably would 
have been at least a majority of the 
AC/SOs.  Regardless of how that would have 
worked, I note that in the legal analysis, we 
find the caveat "Authority under Section 6333 is 
sparse, but it is nonetheless clear that a 
“purpose reasonably related to [a] person’s 
interests as a member” does not include a 
member’s commercial or political interests...."

To allow a single SO to take this action does 
exactly that. Both the ccNSO and a near-majority 
of the GNSO have clear business interests at 
stake and allowing them to solely demand access 
is no longer a "community" action.

Alan

At 06/01/2016 11:47 AM, Jordan Carter 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 
><<mailto:alice.jansen at icann.org>alice.jansen at icann.org> wrote:
>Sent on behalf of CCWG-ACCT Co-Chairs
>In preparation for your Recommendation 1 – 
>Inspection Rightts (first reading) discussion 
>scheduled for your call #75 - Thursday, 7 
>January 2016 (19:00 – 22:00 UTC) - please find 
>attached the maaterial 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
><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org 
>
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
>
>
>--
>Jordan Carter
>
>Chief Executive
>InternetNZ
>
>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | +64-21-442-649 (mob)
>Email: <mailto:jordan at internetnz.net.nz>jordan at internetnz.net.nz
>Skype: jordancarter
>Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160107/b1c8ef60/attachment.html>