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" <icann@rodenbaugh.com> Date: Fri, October 29, 2010 10:04 am To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@gnso.icann.org>

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