Re: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on public policy mattes is inappropriate
We should explore how to get the previously marked "confidential" reports to the board made public (while redacting any legitimately confidential text). Robin On Dec 8, 2009, at 8:45 AM, Avri Doria wrote: Hi,From what I have been told in various conversation with board members over the years, and a few conversations I had with Board chairs, if one assumes that there is at least one confidential report per issue the Board acts upon, one would not be exaggerating.a. On 8 Dec 2009, at 17:33, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:I did not know there was such a thing as a confidential Board report from Staff. I do not see how such a mechanism can possibly fit within ICANN'smission, at least wrt any such report regarding a policy matter.Perhaps we should hear from Staff as to what sorts of confidential reportsthey have been sending, and how often, so we can have a more educated discussion on this point. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW 548 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com -----Original Message-----From: owner-gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-ppsc- pdp@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:25 AM To: Gnso-ppsc-pdp@xxxxxxxxxSubject: RE: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on publicpolicy mattes is inappropriate Hi,I would think that in most cases any of this confidential information couldbe segregated into a confidential appendix. I think that one of the review mechanisms being set up for Board accountability would be able to handle appeals on Freedom of ICANNInformation to insure that things deemed confidential by the Staff actually merited the designation. The degree to which this was done could also be reviewed as part of AoC 9.1 Ensuring accountability, transparency and theinterests of global Internet users.It probably goes without saying that I support a statement that nothing except for a very small set of confidential information should be madepublic.One other question is whether we believe that this information should be vetted before submission to the Board, made public at the same time it is given to the Board or released with the Board's decision. I tend toward's the earlier, the better, though believe the council specifically needs tovett it. a. On 8 Dec 2009, at 17:11, James M. Bladel wrote:Agree, Jeff.And may also suggest we add an exception for any report that containsconfidential 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 personnelmatters, then that would not need to be disclosed to the public.However, there would need to be review to ensure that only true legaladvice and personnel matters are redacted.... For those of us in theUnited States, it would be akin to the Freedom of Information Act andhaving 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 & PolicyThe information contained in this e-mail message is intended only forthe use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidentialand/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient youhave 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 istoo onerous, then we need to be told what the targets are for anacceptable 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 itsreport.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 forit. 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 hasexpressed a similar sentiment. It would be great for others to weigh inon this as well. Jeffrey J. Neuman Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & PolicyThe information contained in this e-mail message is intended only forthe use of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidentialand/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient youhave 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: PPSCSubject: [gnso-ppsc-pdp] PDP practice of confidential reports on publicpolicy mattes is inappropriateI do not believe there should be a standard practice for the ICANN staff to send the ICANN Board a confidential report to accompany the publicreport. 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 whatthe staff is saying to the board, and thus upon what information decisions are being made. Certainly there can be exceptional circumstances when there is alegitimate reason to provide confidential advice to the board from thestaff - 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 aboutbeing 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 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
|