Dear Avri, I´m still wondering how community procedures for one-sided redacting the other parties deposition in a contentious procedure could be developed….. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez _____________________ email: crg@isoc-cr.org Skype: carlos.raulg +506 8837 7173 (cel) +506 4000 2000 (home) +506 2290 3678 (fax) _____________________ Apartado 1571-1000 San Jose, COSTA RICA
On Jul 17, 2015, at 3:35 AM, Avri Doria <avri@acm.org> wrote:
Hi,
Until such time as ewe have community standards on redactions, I think including the contractual or other provision they are relying on for the redaction, as Samantha did in her note, is a useful measure.
avri
On 17-Jul-15 09:56, Chris Disspain wrote:
I don’t believe much ‘convincing’ would be necessary el.
Cheers,
Chris
On 17 Jul 2015, at 17:52 , Dr Eberhard W Lisse <el@lisse.NA <mailto:el@lisse.NA>> wrote:
I am wondering if we can perhaps convince ICANN to in the interim when they redact documents, to write something like "Redacted on request of ........" so that if we were to take ICANN staff by their word that they only redact because of transparency (!) we know at least which side they are on :-)-O
greetings, el
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community