<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#330033">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18-Mar-15 08:41, McAuley, David
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:35A914B1BE398440838C7AFFD79D34A2010074CD@BRN1WNEXMBX01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com"
type="cite">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">There
are probably good reasons for the redactions. But those
reasons may diminish over time such that disclosure can come
later.
</span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
One of the ATRT2 recommendations is a periodic review of redactions
to see if they still warranted redaction.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Once the criteria for redaction were defined, they would need
periodic review.<br>
<br>
Some of the relevant material from ATRT1 on Transparency<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">7. In accordance with the Affirmation of
Commitments:<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
Some of the relevant material from ATRT2<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Findings of ATRT1<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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<br>
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.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Final Recommendation #5<br>
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.</blockquote>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">9.4. Develop Transparency Metrics and
Reporting<br>
The Board should ensure that as part of its yearly report, ICANN
include, among other things, but not be limited to:<br>
a. A report on the broad range of Transparency issues with
supporting metrics to facilitate accountability.<br>
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.<br>
c. Statistical reporting to include at least the following
elements:<br>
i. requests of the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy
(DIDP) process and the disposition of requests.<br>
ii. percentage of redacted-to-unredacted Board briefing materials
released to the general public.<br>
iii. number and nature of issues that the Board determined should
be treated confidentially.<br>
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.</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br /><br />
<hr style='border:none; color:#909090; background-color:#B0B0B0; height: 1px; width: 99%;' />
<table style='border-collapse:collapse;border:none;'>
<tr>
<td style='border:none;padding:0px 15px 0px 8px'>
<a href="http://www.avast.com/">
<img border=0 src="http://static.avast.com/emails/avast-mail-stamp.png" />
</a>
</td>
<td>
<p style='color:#3d4d5a; font-family:"Calibri","Verdana","Arial","Helvetica"; font-size:12pt;'>
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
<br><a href="http://www.avast.com/">www.avast.com</a>
</p>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<br />
</body>
</html>