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