[independent review] [WP2] Independent Review

[Bruce Tonkin]

Hello Malcolm,


>> I would expect the IRP remedy normally to be either "Don't do X" or "Redo this process (from the start / from point Y), avoiding this error we have identified". Whether the nature of the complaint is scope or something else, I think such an instruction is something with which the Board ought to simply comply.

Yes - I think that sort of instruction  is fine too.


>>  "Honour your commitment to diversity and the multistakeholder process by openning a new network of global offices", by contrast, is the sort of instruction no Board could reasonably be expected to receive from an outside body.

Yes - I am more concerned where an IRP panel directs a course of action that incurs high expenses or affects many third parties.

>>. The only one that springs to my mind is discovery (DIDP) - and I don't see any difficulty with instructing the Board ("Release this document" or "Release any documents you have on X").

That would seem fine   It would still be useful to have some ability to agree some redactions of documents - perhaps with the panel.   E.g. Documents could have names and addresses of people or contain financial information about third parties etc      I certainly think it would be useful to have some sort of external review of a decision by staff not to release a document publicly.

Regards
Bruce Tonkin