<<<
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
>>>
|