[CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Reports and Permitted Redactions

[Matthew Shears]

Subject to Avri's thoughts (as she knows the ATRT well) I would think 
that using a tried and tested approach would make sense.

Matthew

On 4/12/2016 9:22 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I will defer to Avri and Matthew on this but I do want to say that I 
> like the idea of doing what is done for the ATRT to the extent that 
> that is possible.
>
> Chuck
>
> *From:*cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org 
> [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan 
> Robinson
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 12, 2016 8:40 AM
> *To:* cwg-stewardship at icann.org
> *Subject:* [CWG-Stewardship] FW: [client com] IFRT Reports and 
> Permitted Redactions
>
> All,
>
> Please can you (especially Avri & Matthew) pay attention to the 
> request below from Sharon.
>
> Thank-you.
>
> Jonathan
>
> *From:* Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com]
> *Sent:* 12 April 2016 02:28
> *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org 
> <mailto:cwg-client at icann.org>>
> *Subject:* [client com] IFRT Reports and Permitted Redactions
>
> Dear All,
>
> The current draft ICANN bylaws (Section 18.4(a)) includes below 
> relating to the reports that PTI will deliver to the IFRT:
>
> Reports provided by PTI pursuant to the IANA Naming Function Contract 
> and/or IANA Naming Function SOW during the IFR period being reviewed, 
> any portion of which may be redacted (i) that reflects privileged 
> advice from legal counsel; (ii) includes PTI or ICANN trade secrets; 
> (iii) where disclosure to the IFRT would otherwise constitute a breach 
> by PTI or ICANN of a binding contractual obligation or legal 
> requirement to which PTI or ICANN is subject; or (iv) if disclosed 
> would present a material risk of negative impact on the security, 
> stability or resiliency of the DNS;
>
> The comment noted in the CWG response circulated on 9 April 2016 was 
> as follows:
>
> Has the same redaction problem we find in other reviews.  This should 
> be treated in the same way as confidential information is treated in 
> ATRT, i.e. signature of NDA (ref Confidential Disclosure to Review 
> Teams 4.6.a.vi).  May need to refer to EC right of inspection as 
> appeal mechanism if NDA is not a possible solution.
>
> For reference Section 4.6(a)(vi) provides as follows:
>
> (i)Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams:
>
> (A)To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN’s 
> deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, 
> shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents pursuant 
> to the Confidential Disclosure Framework set forth in the Operating 
> Standards.  The Confidential Disclosure Framework must be aligned with 
> the following guidelines:
>
> (1)ICANN must provide a justification for any refusal to reveal 
> requested information.  ICANN’s refusal can be appealed to the 
> Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request.
>
> (2)ICANN may designate certain documents and information as “for 
> review team members only” or for a subset of the review team members 
> based on conflict of interest.  ICANN’s designation of documents may 
> also be appealed to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board.
>
> ICANN may require review team members to sign a non-disclosure 
> agreement before accessing documents.
>
> Can CWG please clarify what process is being requested for redactions 
> on reports provided to PTI?  Is the suggestion that 4.6(a)(vi) above 
> replace what is currently in 18.4(a))?  If so, we understand that the 
> Confidential Disclosure Framework may not be final yet.  Has CWG seen 
> drafts and is it comfortable with this process?
>
> Please let us know so that we can mark-up the ICANN draft bylaws 
> accordingly.  This is a point on which the CWG proposal is silent so 
> there isn’t guidance contained within the proposal.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Sharon
>
> *SHARON R. FLANAGAN*
>
>
> *SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP*
> 555 California Street
> Suite 2000
> San Francisco, CA 94104
> +1 415 772 1271
> sflanagan at sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com>
> www.sidley.com <http://www.sidley.com>
>
> *SIDLEY*
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
> This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is 
> privileged or confidential.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and 
> any attachments and notify us
> immediately.
>
> ****************************************************************************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWG-Stewardship mailing list
> CWG-Stewardship at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship

-- 

Matthew Shears | Director, Global Internet Policy & Human Rights Project
Center for Democracy & Technology | cdt.org
E: mshears at cdt.org | T: +44.771.247.2987

CDT's Annual Dinner, Tech Prom, is April 6, 2016. Don't miss out - register at cdt.org/annual-dinner.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cwg-stewardship/attachments/20160412/9f6f83fa/attachment-0001.html>