[reconsideration] [CCWG-ACCT] Reconsideration Sub-Group of the CCWG Work Party 2 Review and Redress

[Avri Doria]

On 18-Mar-15 08:41, McAuley, David wrote:
>
>  
>
> There are probably good reasons for the redactions. But those reasons
> may diminish over time such that disclosure can come later.
>

One of the ATRT2 recommendations is a periodic review of redactions to
see if they still warranted redaction.

The recommendation also include the recommendation that there should be
a set of criteria a redaction must meet and that each redaction should
indicate the reason for the redaction. 

Once the  criteria for redaction were defined, they would need periodic
review.

Some of the relevant material from ATRT1 on Transparency


> 7. In accordance with the Affirmation of Commitments:

> 7.1 Commencing immediately, the Board should promptly publish all
> appropriate materials related to decision making processes – including
> preliminary announcements, briefing materials provided by staff and
> others, detailed Minutes, and where submitted, individual Directors’
> statements relating to significant decisions. The redaction of
> materials should be kept to a minimum, limited to discussion of
> existing or threatened litigation, and staff issues such as appointments.

> 8. As soon as possible but no later than the start of the March 2011
> ICANN meeting the Board should have a document produced and published
> that clearly defines the limited set of circumstances where materials
> may be redacted and that articulates the risks (if any) associated
> with publication of materials. These rules should be referred to by
> the Board, General Counsel and staff when assessing whether material
> should be redacted and cited when such a decision is taken.


> 26. As soon as possible, but no later than October 2011 the ICANN
> Board, to improve transparency, should adopt a standard timeline and
> format for Reconsideration Requests and Board reconsideration outcomes
> that clearly identifies the status of deliberations and then, once
> decisions are made, articulates the rationale used to form those
> decisions.


Some of the relevant material from ATRT2


> Findings of ATRT1

> ATRT1 reviewed ICANN’s policy development and implementation processes
> and made many recommendations about the inputs and standards used for
> making and appealing decisions.75 Both to ease assessment of
> implementation and to shed light on the interrelationships between
> ATRT2’s mandate76 and the ICANN Board’s
> decisions on policy and its implementation, a number of these issues
> have been grouped in this analysis. Importantly, the assessments and
> recommendations made in this document presume the default condition of
> transparency as a basis for all ICANN activities. In those instances
> where the Chatham House Rule77 is invoked and discussions are closed
> and/or reports are redacted, the decision to overrule the transparency
> imperative still should be publicly documented.


> Final Recommendation #5
> The Board should review redaction standards for Board documents,
> Document Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) and any other ICANN
> documents to create a single published redaction policy. Institute a
> process to regularly evaluate redacted material to determine if
> redactions are still required and if not, ensure that redactions are
> removed.

> 9.4. Develop Transparency Metrics and Reporting
> The Board should ensure that as part of its yearly report, ICANN
> include, among other things, but not be limited to:
> a. A report on the broad range of Transparency issues with supporting
> metrics to facilitate accountability.
> b. A discussion of the degree to which ICANN, both staff and
> community, are adhering to a default standard of transparency in all
> policy, implementation and administrative actions; as well as the
> degree to which all narratives, redaction, or other practices used to
> not disclose information to the ICANN community are documented in a
> transparent manner.
> c. Statistical reporting to include at least the following elements:
> i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP)
> process and the disposition of requests.
> ii. percentage of redacted-to-unredacted Board briefing materials
> released to the general public.
> iii. number and nature of issues that the Board determined should be
> treated confidentially.
> iv. other ICANN usage of redaction and other methods to not disclose
> information to the community and statistics on reasons given for usage
> of such methods.


avri


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/wp2-reconsideration/attachments/20150319/fb32784f/attachment.html>