ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "Council GNSO" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting - 24/25 September 2010
  • From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:04:35 +1000
  • In-reply-to: <014301cb777a$9e337900$da9a6b00$@com>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • References: <B7ACC01E42881F4981F66BA96FC14957052260CA@WIC001MITEBCLV1.messaging.mit> <014301cb777a$9e337900$da9a6b00$@com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Act3F/Zcne2Z0gBfT0aiB0qsmQSj1wAYlz5gAB0d0KA=
  • Thread-topic: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting - 24/25 September 2010

Hello Mike,

> 
> 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?  


It is early days in the process of publishing the materials.  I and
other Board members have individually been encouraging publication of
the materials.

As far as I know there is not a formal criteria that has been
established yet.  Currently the decision rests with the General Counsel
from a risk perspective.  The board has not been involved in selecting
text to be redacted.   I guess it can be appealed through the
Reconsideration process in the bylaws or through the Ombudsman office.

The process and degree to which materials are published is likely to be
a topic at the Board retreat next week.  I lean more towards the GNSO
processes (audio recording and open access to materials accept as
explicitly approved by Board not to do so).


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin





<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>