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

[Greg Shatan]

I agree as well.

Greg

On Tuesday, April 12, 2016, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:

> 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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org');> [
> mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 [
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>
> mailto:sflanagan at sidley.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>]
> *Sent:* 12 April 2016 02:28
> *To:* Client Committee <cwg-client at icann.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>sflanagan at sidley.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sflanagan at sidley.com');>
> www.sidley.com
>
> *[image: 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 listCWG-Stewardship at icann.org <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20160413/c103abe2/attachment.html>