I imagine that the risk analysis may have included who may sue ICANN and
why based on various outcomes, so I can see why that might be redacted
(speculative) but it wasn't likely the entire sum of the analysis, or at
least I hope. For example, I would assume the DOJ was consulted based on
the SW proposal and their analysis of the VI-WG proposals. Why would the
results of that be redacted?


Tim

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: RE: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim
> meeting - 24/25 September 2010
> From: "Mike Rodenbaugh"
> Date: Fri, October 29, 2010 10:04 am
> To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" ,
> "'Council GNSO'"
>
> 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? I was appalled to see the 'risk analysis' stricken from the VI
> discussion, since obviously that is the most important information/opinion
> provided to the Board on that topic (all else was provided by the VI-WG),
> and is most deserving of community transparency.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
> http://rodenbaugh.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On
> Behalf Of Bruce Tonkin
> Sent: Thursday, October 28, 2010 8:19 PM
> To: Council GNSO
> Subject: [council] ICANN Board briefing materials for the Trondheim meeting
> - 24/25 September 2010
>
>
> Hello All,
>
> The ICANN staff have published some of the briefing materials provided
> to the Board for the Trondheim meeting on 24-25 September 2010.
>
> See:
>
> http://www.icann.org/en/minutes
>
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin