All, Please can you (especially Avri & Matthew) pay attention to the request below from Sharon. Thank-you. Jonathan From: Flanagan, Sharon [mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com] Sent: 12 April 2016 02:28 To: Client Committee <cwg-client@icann.org> Subject: [client com] IFRT Reports and Permitted Redactions Dear All, The current draft ICANN bylaws (Section 18.4(a)) includes below relating to the reports that PTI will deliver to the IFRT: Reports provided by PTI pursuant to the IANA Naming Function Contract and/or IANA Naming Function SOW during the IFR period being reviewed, any portion of which may be redacted (i) that reflects privileged advice from legal counsel; (ii) includes PTI or ICANN trade secrets; (iii) where disclosure to the IFRT would otherwise constitute a breach by PTI or ICANN of a binding contractual obligation or legal requirement to which PTI or ICANN is subject; or (iv) if disclosed would present a material risk of negative impact on the security, stability or resiliency of the DNS; The comment noted in the CWG response circulated on 9 April 2016 was as follows: Has the same redaction problem we find in other reviews. This should be treated in the same way as confidential information is treated in ATRT, i.e. signature of NDA (ref Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams 4.6.a.vi). May need to refer to EC right of inspection as appeal mechanism if NDA is not a possible solution. For reference Section 4.6(a)(vi) provides as follows: (i) Confidential Disclosure to Review Teams: (A) To facilitate transparency and openness regarding ICANN’s deliberations and operations, the Review Teams, or a subset thereof, shall have access to ICANN internal information and documents pursuant to the Confidential Disclosure Framework set forth in the Operating Standards. The Confidential Disclosure Framework must be aligned with the following guidelines: (1) ICANN must provide a justification for any refusal to reveal requested information. ICANN’s refusal can be appealed to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board for a ruling on the disclosure request. (2) ICANN may designate certain documents and information as “for review team members only” or for a subset of the review team members based on conflict of interest. ICANN’s designation of documents may also be appealed to the Ombudsman and/or the ICANN Board. ICANN may require review team members to sign a non-disclosure agreement before accessing documents. Can CWG please clarify what process is being requested for redactions on reports provided to PTI? Is the suggestion that 4.6(a)(vi) above replace what is currently in 18.4(a))? If so, we understand that the Confidential Disclosure Framework may not be final yet. Has CWG seen drafts and is it comfortable with this process? Please let us know so that we can mark-up the ICANN draft bylaws accordingly. This is a point on which the CWG proposal is silent so there isn’t guidance contained within the proposal. Best regards, Sharon SHARON R. FLANAGAN SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP 555 California Street Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94104 +1 415 772 1271 sflanagan@sidley.com <mailto:sflanagan@sidley.com> <http://www.sidley.com> www.sidley.com <http://www2.sidley.com/files/upload/signatures/SIDLEY_150-AUTOSIG.png> **************************************************************************************************** This e-mail is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately. ****************************************************************************************************