[CCWG-ACCT] Further Board feedback on Inspection rights

Edward Morris 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. 
 Kind Regards,
 Edward Morris

 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.

Bruce Tonkin

Board Liaison to the CCWG

Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160114/2f680b1d/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list