RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate

[Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>]

After being so definitive, I find that I left something out.

Staff are also free to provide its opinion on the policy to the 
Board. That too should be public. Only issues which DEMAND 
confidentiality should be confidential.
At 08/12/2009 11:33 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> I really don't think that we need to identify all of the reasons 
> that a confidential and/or legal advice may need to be given to the 
> Board. I think the issue is that it be the document describing the 
> proposed policy to the board be publicly accessible.
> It must be clear that they are voting on what we proposed. Period.
>
> Alan
>
> At 08/12/2009 11:11 AM, James M. Bladel wrote:
> > Agree, Jeff.
> >
> > And may also suggest we add an exception for any report that contains
> > confidential information regarding contract negotiations or vendor
> > selection that are ongoing, and could be adversely affected by
> > disclosure.
> >
> > Thanks--
> >
> > J.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of
> > confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
> > From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, December 08, 2009 9:59 am
> > To: "Diaz, Paul" <pdiaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > "Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx" <gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >
> > Thanks all. Is there anyone that disagrees?
> >
> > The one caveat I would give to everything being disclosed is if there is
> > TRULY legal advice given to the Board or issues relating to personnel
> > matters, then that would not need to be disclosed to the public.
> > However, there would need to be review to ensure that only true legal
> > advice and personnel matters are redacted.... For those of us in the
> > United States, it would be akin to the Freedom of Information Act and
> > having independent review of the courts to make sure that the US
> > Government is revealing all information except those allowed to be
> > confidential under the law.
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
> > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
> > have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> > notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Diaz, Paul
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 10:37 AM
> > To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: Alan Greenberg
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of
> > confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
> >
> >
> > I support Alan's comments below.
> >
> > Paul Diaz
> > Policy & Ethics Manager
> > Network Solutions, LLC
> > ________________________________________
> > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 11:12 PM
> > To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-ppsc] RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of
> > confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
> >
> > I strongly support Robin's comment.
> >
> > If the main issue is (as has been claimed) that the full PDP report is
> > too onerous, then we need to be told what the targets are for an
> > acceptable length Board report so that the WG can create it. In the end,
> > the current "confidential" report is likely to be written by the same
> > policy staff who assisted the WG in its deliberations and in writing its
> > report.
> >
> > If staff must also provide some sort of confidential advice to the Board
> > in its deliberations, that is fine, but it should be an addition to the
> > report (condenced or otherwise) send by the GNSO, not a substitute for
> > it.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 07/12/2009 09:21 PM, Neuman, Jeff wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Robin for this comment.  Robin brings up a point that was
> > discussed on the last call.  I know the registry constituency has
> > expressed a similar sentiment. It would be great for others to weigh in
> > on this as well.
> >
> > Jeffrey J. Neuman
> > Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for
> > the use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential
> > and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you
> > have received this e-mail message in error and any review,
> > dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
> > notify us immediately and delete the original message.
> >
> >
> > From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [
> > mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> > Sent: Monday, December 07, 2009 6:06 PM
> > To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: PPSC
> > Subject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public
> > policy mattes is inappropriate
> >
> > I do not believe there should be a standard practice for the ICANN staff
> > to send the ICANN Board a confidential report to accompany the public
> > report. which the GNSO approves of.
> >
> > I'm especially concerned since we hear the board often only reads the
> > staff prepared report, which means the community really has no idea what
> > the staff is saying to the board, and thus upon what information
> > decisions are being made.
> >
> > Certainly there can be exceptional circumstances when there is a
> > legitimate reason to provide confidential advice to the board from the
> > staff - but that should be on a case by case basis, where legitimate
> > need is demonstrated.  However a standard PDP practice of a private
> > report on policy matters goes against all of ICANN's promises about
> > being transparent in its policy process.   It is time to put an end to
> > the practice of confidential reports on matters of public deliberation.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Robin
> >
> >
> > IP JUSTICE
> > Robin Gross, Executive Director
> > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> > p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> > w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx