[council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting - 24/25 September 2010

[Tim Ruiz]

I imagine that the risk analysis may have included who may sue ICANN and
why based on various outcomes, so I can see why that might be redacted
(speculative) but it wasn't likely the entire sum of the analysis, or at
least I hope. For example, I would assume the DOJ was consulted based on
the SW proposal and their analysis of the VI-WG proposals. Why would the
results of that be redacted?


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim
> meeting - 24/25 September 2010
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <icann at rodenbaugh.com>
> Date: Fri, October 29, 2010 10:04 am
> To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>,       
> "'Council GNSO'" <council at gnso.icann.org>
> 
> Thanks Bruce.  What are the criteria by which portions of these materials
> are redacted, and who makes the decision whether to redact, and how can it
> be appealed?  I was appalled to see the 'risk analysis' stricken from the VI
> discussion, since obviously that is the most important information/opinion
> provided to the Board on that topic (all else was provided by the VI-WG),
> and is most deserving of community transparency.
> 
> Best,
> Mike
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:19 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting
> - 24/25 September 2010
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> The ICANN staff have published some of the briefing materials provided
> to the Board for the Trondheim meeting on 24-25 September 2010.
> 
> See:
> 
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20101029/3e88aba6/attachment.html>