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

[avri doria]

Hi,

Just catching up on CWG list now. 

Short answer: yes.

Longer answer:

My comment was based on the recommendation that the IFR/SIFR, which was
indicated as being include among the AOC type reviews, was considered as
inheriting the conditions for these reviews.

E.g
> 3. IANA Functions Review. The creation of an IFR which is empowered to
> conduct periodic
> and special reviews of the IANA functions relating to names. IFRs and
> Special IFRs will
> be incorporated into the Affirmation of Commitments mandated reviews
> set forth in the
> ICANN Bylaws.

This description was based on the state of discussion CCWG at that
time.  In the end, other AOC reviews were not made fundamental, while
the IFR remained fundamental.  So the IFR was not actually incorporated
into the Specific Reviews (aka AOC) section but broken out on their own
in Section 18.    Nonetheless, the IFR should be done under the same
conditions as the Section 6 Specific Reviews.

The section quoted from Section 4.6(a)(vi) is the correct reference. 
Apologies for not referencing it myself in the comments.

Note: As far as being comfortable with the fact that the CCWG is still
working on bylaws review, got to trust in something.  I am personally
comfortable.

thanks

avri


On 12-Apr-16 08:40, Jonathan Robinson wrote:
>
> 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>
> *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



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus