14,932
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 29:
Line 29: + + + + + + +
Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (view source)
Revision as of 21:00, 14 January 2022
, 2 years ago→Criticism
==Criticism==
==Criticism==
* As part of the [[Public Comment]] proceedings for [https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-revisions-to-the-icann-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-21-10-2021 ICANN's proposed revisions to its current DIDP],
::* The [[RySG|Registries Stakeholder Group]] noted that the conditions for nondisclosure would be broader; advised that any additional DIDP roles for the Ombudsman should not remove or replace the Reconsideration Request process; requested clarification on community members', and the Ombuds' resultant, procedures for appealing to DIDP responses; and recommended that the Complaint’s Officer should be the home for additional review of DIDP Responses.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-revisions-to-the-icann-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-21-10-2021/submissions/rysg-registries-stakeholder-group-13-12-2021 RySG Submission to Proposed DIDP Changes, Public Comment, ICANN</ref>
::* [[ALAC]] expressed concern that the changes would grant "ICANN the right to refuse any and all requests." It warned that ICANN should not use DIDP to "cover up its errors or poor judgement." Finally, the committee submission recommended that ICANN:
::*# Allow Ombuds to oversee the mechanism for requestor review of ICANN DIDP responses;
::*# Document in DIDP Policy recourse when DIDP is not fully satisfied; and
::*# Revise the new language on conditions for nondisclosure.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/forms/publiccomment/submission/AL-ALAC-ST-1221-01-00-EN.pdf ALAC Submission on Proposed DIDP Changes, Public Comment, ICANN]</ref>
::* [[Kevin Murphy]] summarized various community members' and collectives' critiques as accusing ICANN of "shirk its transparency obligations" by granting greater ability to deny requests without any explanation.<ref>[https://domainincite.com/27342-icann-trying-to-water-down-its-transparency-obligations ICANN trying to water down its transparency obligations, DomainIncite]</ref>
* Dr. [[Sarah Clayton]] argues that the 12 defined conditions of non-disclosure (DCND) "essentially provide an administrative loophole for ICANN to restrict the free flow of information."<ref>[http://sunbelt2016.insna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-Sunbelt-Program_040516_FINAL_wchange-for-online.pdf International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 2016]</ref> Furthermore, her statistical p* models demonstrate that
* Dr. [[Sarah Clayton]] argues that the 12 defined conditions of non-disclosure (DCND) "essentially provide an administrative loophole for ICANN to restrict the free flow of information."<ref>[http://sunbelt2016.insna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-Sunbelt-Program_040516_FINAL_wchange-for-online.pdf International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 2016]</ref> Furthermore, her statistical p* models demonstrate that
*# [[ICANN Organization]] considers lengthier submissions to be more likely to request contentious information and are more likely to apply DCND to them
*# [[ICANN Organization]] considers lengthier submissions to be more likely to request contentious information and are more likely to apply DCND to them