[CCWG-ACCT] Further Board feedback on Inspection rights
egmorris1 at toast.net
Thu Jan 14 06:45:18 UTC 2016
I just want to thank the Board for their openness, flexibility and hard
work in helping us to clarify and agree upon a way of moving forward on
both transparency in general and the Inspection right in particular. The
Investigation right is a real novel and positive development and the Board
deserves full credit for its proposal.
It is always easy to focus on disagreement and rupture between the Board
and the community. Perhaps we also should acknowledge the times when we are
able to make true progress working together. This is one such moment. I
truly look forward to working together with the Board and with others in
the community in developing a robust, vital and workable DIDP during WS2.
Thank you again.
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 6:29 AM
To: "Accountability Cross Community"
<accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Further Board feedback on Inspection rights
First, the Board agrees with an inspection right that limited to accounting
books and records. The Board also agrees that the inspection right can be
invoked by a single SO or AC. The inspection right, however, does not need
to be a right reserved to the Sole Designator. As explained in the Board's
Comments on the Third Draft Proposal, the inspection right should be a
community right, and not a right reserved to the Sole Designator. Giving
the Sole Designator a right of inspection - as opposed to making it a right
held by the community - represents a significant and inappropriate change
to the Sole Designator. The Sole Designator can be used to enforce the
community's right of inspection (through the escalation process, if ICANN
errs in response). Particularly when a single SO or AC could invoke the
inspection right, requiring that demand to go through a community process
to direct the Sole Designator seems to add complexity that is not
The Board therefore recommends changing the words of Paragraph 20 to "the
CCWG-Accountability recommends including in the ICANN Bylaws the right for
SOs or ACs to inspect as outlined in California Corporations Code 6333,
although this specific article reference would not be mentioned in the
For Paragraph 21, "This inspection right is distinct from the Document
Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). While any eligible party can file a
request according to the DIDP, Inspection Rights are only accessible to SOs
or ACs. The scopes are also different as explained below." "Unlike the
exercise of the other community powers, which require community engagement
and escalation before initiating a request for action by the EC, the
CCWG-Accountability recommends that a petition for inspection be brought
directly by a single SO/AC or by multiple SO/ACs through making a written
demand on ICANN for the requested materials. If the Board refused or
ignored the request, the petitioning SO/AC(s) could then initiate an
escalating community decision-making process to enforce the demand on the
Board, requiring community consensus."
The Board agrees with the inclusion of an investigation right, and notes
that the language proposed in the redline reflects the Board's comments.
Finally, the Board reaffirms its commitment to addressing improvements to
the DIDP in WS2, and thanks the CCWG for the clarification in the document
on the differences between the inspection right and the DIDP.
Board Liaison to the CCWG
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community