Redactions in ICANN documents
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
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> 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
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
Hello Avri,
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.
Yes - I like the idea that any redaction comes with a note for the reason for the redaction. Also I would like to be able to share more of our critical contracts - e.g. commercial agreements with parties providing legal advice, carrying our reviews, varying our evaluations on new gTLD applications, etc to be public - but with key commercials (e.g pricing model) and private information (e.g. mobile phone numbers for escalations etc) redacted . This may mean that contracts with third parties are structured so that the materials that need to be redacted are contained in schedules rather than the core agreement. A schedule can be used to contain pricing, and personal contact details etc. There also should d be a clear mechanisms for challenging a redaction - and this might be something that could be incorporated into the Ombudsman function. Ie the Ombudsman should have access to non-redacted documents and confirm that the redactions comply with any redaction policy, or confidentiality agreements. Regards Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, Nobody says you can't redact stuff like cell phone numbers, especially if you write "cell phone number redacted". But taking things to be redacted out into a schedule, is a good idea, I think, especially when writing into the contract what information is going to be redacted. However redacting things like pricing models is going to be controversial. The Ombudsman is not independent and (the position rather more than the individual occupying it at present) is thoroughly discredited. greetings, el On 2015-07-17 11:53 , Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Avri,
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.
Yes - I like the idea that any redaction comes with a note for the reason for the redaction.
Also I would like to be able to share more of our critical contracts - e.g. commercial agreements with parties providing legal advice, carrying our reviews, varying our evaluations on new gTLD applications, etc to be public - but with key commercials (e.g pricing model) and private information (e.g. mobile phone numbers for escalations etc) redacted . This may mean that contracts with third parties are structured so that the materials that need to be redacted are contained in schedules rather than the core agreement. A schedule can be used to contain pricing, and personal contact details etc.
There also should d be a clear mechanisms for challenging a redaction - and this might be something that could be incorporated into the Ombudsman function. Ie the Ombudsman should have access to non-redacted documents and confirm that the redactions comply with any redaction policy, or confidentiality agreements.
Regards Bruce Tonkin
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
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Bruce Tonkin -
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez -
Chris Disspain -
Dr Eberhard W Lisse