Internet Watch Foundation

Present: Amanda Jordan (Chair), Emma Ascroft, Sonia Livingstone, Hamish MacLeod, Tink Palmer, Jim Reynolds, Camille de Stempel, Ian Walden,

 

IWF Staff: Peter Robbins, Brian Wegg

Apologies:  None

Amanda Jordan opened the meeting and noted that Emma Ascroft would join the meeting later.  No other apologies were necessary.

 

2          Minutes of previous Board meeting – 22^nd May 2007

These were accepted as a true record of the meeting.

 

3          Matters arising - (including action summary from 22^nd May)

With regard to action 1, Chief Executive reported that because of the proposal of self-certification it had not been necessary to follow up the contact with FSM.

On action 5, Secretariat explained that no written confirmation had been received from the Charity Commission outlining the reasons for turning down the application for remunerating Trustees.  Chair asked the secretariat to pursue this matter and report back to her.

ACTION 1: Secretariat to contact the Commission and seek written reply.

All other actions had been carried out and there were no other matters arising.

4          Minutes from Executive Committee of 12^th June - for information

These were noted.

 

(a)               Arrangements for replacing public interest Board members – summary report  

Board noted the update report and Chair outlined the next stages in the process.

(b)               Sub-committee feedback – Communications:

(i)     Cooperative Communications Plan for 2007/8

Camille de Stempel described the communications meeting with industry representatives and the helpful dialogue and ideas that had emerged.  The ideas had been worked into a Co-operative Communications Plan for 2007/8 which established the focus for communications and included some challenging deadlines.

Board supported the plan nem con.

(ii)           Nominet Best Practice challenge and National Business Awards

Chief Executive explained that this was an information item which outlined two awards that we had been encouraged to enter.  Following a brief discussion Board supported IWF entering an application for both awards.

(iii) Press cuttings

These were noted.

 

(c) Sub-committee feedback – Audit:

     (i)       Financial position – summary update         

     Chief Executive outlined the financial position for the year which remained broadly neutral, with income being greater than expectation but this being offset by some expenditure items which had been higher than forecast.  The executive was putting in place procedures for ensuring the members of Audit Sub-committee receive the monthly management accounts in order to monitor the financial position.

 

(d) Membership update

The membership applications of Exa networks and Jungle 247 were approved. 

Chief Executive asked Board to note that consolidation and acquisition was continuing within the industry and this caused uncertainty on future membership and income forecasts.

 

(a)  Feedback from the morning seminar

Board felt that the morning discussions had been helpful in contributing to an understanding of international activity and partnership to combat illegal online content.  Concern was expressed about the reference in a presentation which characterised part of the international partnership as the US versus the UK.  Board concluded that this misunderstanding needed addressing.

ACTION 2:  a) CEO to arrange a meeting with NCMEC; and

       b) Briefing paper to be assembled which could be used as a basis for    improving the relationship with US counterparts.

Board considered the overseas hosting of hosted potentially illegal child sex abuse content and concluded that IWF should continue to publish data which identified in which countries such content appeared to be hosted and to lobby for appropriate international action with regard to the hosting of the content.

Board concluded that a number of issues needed further development and discussion.

ACTION 3: a) Chair and Vice-chair of Funding Council to be invited to the next Board Executive Committee meeting on 11^th September; and 

b) Chair and CEO to draft a briefing paper on headline issues

(b)  Extreme Pornography

Chief Executive updated the meeting with regard to certain aspects of the proposals and Board concluded that they needed to take a position on the proposals on which stakeholders would be consulted.

ACTION 4:  CEO to prepare a briefing note for September Board meeting 

(c)  Terminology for IWF documents

Chief Executive explained that this was an information item to confirm with Board that IWF documents would now use the more precise term child sex abuse.

 

(d)  Consultation response to HO on the possession of non-photographic visual depictions of child sexual abuse – final document

The response to the Home Office consultation was noted.

 

(e)  CAIC: 

(i)   Final draft of transparency web page for publication on IWF web site

Board considered some further industry feedback with regard to the proposed FAQs and following further discussion, accepted the proposed changes subject to the following amendments:

·         ‘What is blocking?’ – reinstating the third bullet point, ‘Disrupt the accessibility….’

·         ‘Are the URLs for websites hosted in the UK?’ – adding at the beginning of the answer, ‘None of the URLs on the list are hosted in the UK because of the notice and takedown procedures that operate.’

·         ‘Does this stop even the most determined people from looking at abusive images of children?’ – adding at the beginning of the answer, ‘This initiative is one element in a wider effort to combat….’ And reinstating the last paragraphs as follows:

ACTION 5: Secretariat to: 

a) Notify fund@ that that the transparency web page had been finalised and would be published at 2 pm on 4^th July; and

b) Carry out the above amendments and arrange for publication at 2 pm on 4^th July.

(ii) Validation – discussion paper on the principles self-certification and initial industry feedback

Chief Executive explained that at the last Board meeting the option of self-certification had been supported and the principles for its development were set out in this paper.  The paper had been discussed at the last Funding Council meeting and the principles had been accepted.  It was acknowledged that there were a number of details which needed finalising with regard to frequencies, processes and the handling of any ‘breaches’ of procedure.

Peter pointed out that Funding Council had sought reassurance that Board would stand by their decision on self-certification in the face of any media or government challenge.   Chair confirmed that she saw the principles set out as being in accordance with a partnership in self-regulation and would argue that position.

The executive were seeking further information from companies that were being supplied with the list on the following points:

·Are there any issues or uncertainties about the proposed self-certification on which you require clarification?

·Will your company being carrying out self-certification or engaging a third party to carry this out?

·What timescale for self-certification do you think is feasible for your company?  

A further report would come to Board in September.  It was confirmed that an option of IWL carrying out validation may need to be discussed if CAIC users sought IWF help on this issue.

 

(a)  Chair’s report

Chair reported that she had written to the relevant new Cabinet Ministers introducing them to the work and role of IWF.  

 

(b)  Chief Executive’s report

(a)   Hotline Operational report

The report was noted.

Chair asked Board to note that the General Manager had left the employment of IWF in order to pursue other career options.

In the interim a consultant would be engaged to assist with strategic planning and further work would be carried out to review the management and organisational structure.

 

10        Board dates for 2007: 18^th Sept. (Oakington), 27^th Nov.– both Tuesdays, 10.30am.  

 

 

The meeting closed at 4 pm.