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

Also in attendance for item 15: Chris Atkinson

Amanda Jordan opened the meeting.

 

Chair notified the meeting that she had received Chris Atkinson’s resignation from the Board.  Chris had been appointed to a post in the internet industry and was no longer eligible to be a public-interest Board member.

3          Minutes of previous Board meeting – 16^th January 2007

These were accepted as a true record of the meeting.

It was noted that all actions were completed, ongoing or matters on the main agenda.

There were no other matters arising.

These were noted.

 

Chief Executive explained that Board had asked the executive to prepare a press release which would be on stand-by in the event of a disclosure of the CAIC list.

 

Board felt that the tone of the draft release needed some adjustment, that reference should be made to the measures taken to ensure security and noted some minor wording changes.  Board members were asked to forward any further comments to the Communications Coordinator.

 

ACTION 1:  (a) Board to forward comments

(b) Communications Coordinator to prepare a final draft. 

Chief Executive asked Board to note that the paper was a progress report that outlined the available options and considered their viability; Board were not being asked to take decisions on the matter at this stage and not all options had been fully explored and costed.

 

Board asked that in order to inform decision making the final paper should include definitions and state a clear objective for validating.  Following further discussion, Board acknowledged that the concept of self-validation fitted into the philosophy of self-regulation but would require a form of random checking.

 

ACTION 2: A paper including more fully costed options to be presented to next Board

  

Chief Executive introduced the paper and explained that the process set out was illustrative and identified some possible breaches with timescales and some possible consequences.  At this stage the executive was seeking guidance from Board with regard to the process.

 

Board members felt it was important to differentiate between minor breaches and more significant breaches and, if there were persistent breaches of any nature, it was felt that stopping supply of the data should occur at an early stage.  Board noted that it may be necessary to form a panel to consider significant breaches, appropriate action and appeals.  Some Board members expressed concern about the term breach in the context of this process.

 

Chief executive explained that the executive had taken this part of the process as far as in-house expertise would allow and would take into account Board comments in seeking external advice in producing a more detailed paper for consultation with industry.  A further paper would come to the May Board meeting.

 

ACTION 3: Ian Walden to assist in commissioning external advice on designing an appropriate process.  

 

Board noted the revised draft paragraph and FAQs and agreed to forward comments within one week.  Following Board amendments, the revised paragraph would be circulated to industry and ISPA for comments.

ACTION 4: (a) Comments on the revised transparency paragraph to be forwarded to the executive; and

(b) Revised paragraph to industry and ISPA.

Board noted that the proposal was this would now be a self-standing offence based on possession and would not be an amendment to the Obscene Publications Act.

 

Chair explained that legislation was imminent, that the government had asked IWF to take this matter on and it was therefore important to have a debate on the issues.  Board considered whether the proposal was an extension to the remit and some Board members expressed the view that it fell within the current remit.  Chief Executive said that following an initial surge he felt the impact on workload should be minimal.

 

Following further discussion Board agreed that a consultation paper should go to industry colleagues for comment.

 

ACTION 5: Consultation paper to industry on:

(a)   Whether the proposals are an extension to the remit; and

(b)   Whether IWF should take this work on.   

Committee Chair reported that the first meeting had taken place.  At the meeting management accounts had been fully scrutinised and an outline agenda plan set out for the year. The next meeting would take place in April in order to review the provisional close down figures and to receive tenders for the appointment of auditors.

Board supported the recommendations in the paper.

 

Chief Executive explained that the revised paper had been supported by Funding Council and Board adopted the transitional business plan nem con.  

Board supported both applications for Associate Membership. 

Board noted the application by Cumbria Local Authority for access to the CAIC list and confirmed that the application did not satisfy their policy decision made on 5^th December 2006 Board which stated that the CAIC list would only be made available to ISPs and software providers.

 

Board noted that the application had been made and was under consideration by the Commission.

It was noted that the executive had carried out some initial discussions with recruitment consultants and more would take place shortly.  Board endorsed the recommended independent member of the panel.

ACTION 6: Hamish volunteered to make the approach.

 

Board members felt the theme for the strategic discussion should be, ‘Emerging content and emerging measures - what are the key issues for IWF over the next three years’.  Board felt that the international dimension to IWF’s work should form a key part of the discussion.

 

Chair had no further matters to report.

          Chief Executive updated the meeting with regard to the INHOPE database and pointed out that some funding difficulties had arisen.  He was asked to keep Board informed about any developments.

Board noted the helpful report.  Board agreed that it would be helpful to receive a presentation from the hotline at the September meeting in Oakington on how a report is processed.

 

The developments in forming a partnership to deal with this content were noted.

 

Sarah Robertson gave a presentation on the evaluation of the programme of Roadshows.

Noted.

c)   Communications Sub-committee 27^th February

Chair gave feedback on the first  committee meeting. 

d)  Annual Report 2006

Sarah Robertson outlined the arrangements for the launch of the annual report at 11 Downing Street on 23 April and the plans to carry out the PR and media launch on Tuesday 17^th  April.

Chair explained that there were limits on the number which could be accommodated for the launch and it had been necessary to limit the invitations accordingly.  The focus of the launch event would be the role of industry. 

Chair welcomed Chris Atkinson to the meeting, thanked her for her contribution to the Board and presented Chris with a gift as a token of IWF’s appreciation of her input.

There was no further business.

22^nd May, 3^rd July, 18^th September, 27^th November – all Tuesdays, start time 10.30 am

[The 3^rd July meeting will be the annual strategic meeting and Board away-day and the September meeting to be hosted at the IWF offices.]

The next meeting will be at the Smart Company.

 

The meeting closed at 1 pm.