3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 745:
Line 745: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (view source)
Revision as of 23:31, 31 January 2022
, 2 years ago→Summary Tables of DIDP Requests & Responses
| 2, 3, 8, 9, & 12
| 2, 3, 8, 9, & 12
|
|
|-
| 17 November 2015
| Jeffrey Smith on behalf of Commercial Connect, LLC
| Documentation related to deliberations and decisions for [[.shop]] string contention set. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151117-1-smith-request-17nov15-en.pdf Full request].
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151117-1-smith-response-supporting-docs-15dec15-en.pdf Provided the notice emails] sent to Commercial Connect related to the .shop string contention process; otherwise pointed to public information and declined to disclose other documents
| 2, 3, 5, 8 & 9
|
|-
| 30 November 2015
| The Centre for Internet and Society
| All documents submitted to the NTIA regarding the [[IANA Functions Stewardship Transition]], and particularly the extension of the IANA Functions contract beyond the initial transition deadline. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-1-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf Full request]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-1-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf Declined]
|
| The response noted that the DIDP request was very broad; however, as there were no documents in ICANN's possession responsive to the request, it was not cited as a Defined Condition of Nondisclosure
|-
| 30 November 2015
| The Centre for Internet and Society
| Documents regarding the presumptive renewal clauses of [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]]s, including any documents defining the rationale for including such a clause, and specifically documents related to the renewal of .com & .net with with [[Verisign]] and .org with [[Public Interest Registry]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-2-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf Full request].
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-2-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf Pointed to published documents]; otherwise declined to deliver more.
| 1, 2, 3, 8, & 9
|
|-
| 30 November 2015
| The Centre for Internet and Society
| Documents regarding the relationship between ICANN and the [[Regional Internet Registry|RIRs]], including any contracts or agreements between them and financial information related to RIR payments to ICANN. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-3-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf Full request]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-3-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf Declined]
| 1, 2, 3, 9, & 12
| Response noted that many of the links to published materials had been provided in response to an earlier DIDP from CIS.
|-
| 1 December 2015
| Mike Rodenbaugh, Asia Green IT Systems
| Documents regarding Asia Green's application for the .PERSIANGULF gTLD, and the [[Independent Review Process]] (IRP) filed by the Gulf Cooperation Council relating to the .PERSIANGULF string. Specifically, correspondence regarding the IRP, and any documents or records of the June 2014 meeting between ICANN and the Gulf Cooperation Council.
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151202-1-agit-request-response-supporting-docs-01jan16-en.pdf Provided the email notice to Asia Green] regarding its change in application status to "on hold" - otherwise declined
| 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, & 9
|
|-
| 11 February 2016
| Registrar Stakeholder Group Executive Committee
| Requested details of the travel support provided by ICANN with relation to the [[NCPH]] Intersessional meetings in 2015 and 2016
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160211-1-rrsg-response-12mar16-en.pdf Provided the requested information]
| 12
| Response did not seek to gather cost & budget information for ICANN staff - the money for staff travel did not come from community support funds and would be burdensome to collate.
|-
| 23 April 2016
| Centre for Internet and Society
| Reports submitted by the [[Board Governance Committee]] to the full board, as required by the ICANN Bylaws
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-1-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf Pointed to published reports]
|
|
|-
| 23 April 2016
| Centre for Internet and Society
| Requesting "diversity analysis" documents of public comments, similar to the [[IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group]]'s analysis of public comments related to its work on the [[IANA Transition]]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-2-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf Declined]
|
| ICANN does not perform such analysis, thus no documents existed
|-
| 23 April 2016
| Centre for Internet and Society
| Requesting information related to ICANN's [[Contractual Compliance]] audits of registrars and registries, as referenced in [[Fadi Chehade]]'s welcome speech at [[ICANN 51]]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-3-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf Pointed to published materials], otherwise declined
| 2, 5, & 6
| Again, the response noted that this request was essentially a duplicate of a previous DIDP request from CIS.
|-
| 23 April 2016
| Centre for Internet and Society
| Requesting "accurate" statistics regarding staff responses to DIDP requests. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf Full request].
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf Reported] that ICANN was conducting a statistical analysis of the the DIDP program and would post results on its website. Otherwise declined.
| 2, 6, & 8
| "With respect to the research summary that you provided in your DIDP Request and that you presented at the Non Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) Session, held on 8 March 2016 at [[ICANN55]] (referenced in your Request), while it is not within the parameters of a DIDP request or response for ICANN to review your research “for accuracy” as you request in your presentation, ICANN does note several discrepancies with the information and/or characterizations provided in your summary. In several instances, your characterizations of “no” or “partly” disclosed are either mistaken, do not acknowledge the information and documents identified as publicly posted, do not take into consideration the nature of the requests and the existence (or lack thereof) of responsive documents, and/or do not consider the balancing required between the public benefit and the potential harm of requested disclosures.
|-
| 26 April 2016
| Centre for Internet and Society
| Requesting information related to the Applicant Support Program that was part of the [[New gTLD Program]]
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160426-1-cis-response-25may16-en.pdf Pointed to published information and statistics.
|
| All information responsive to the request was already publicly available.
|-
| 29 April 2016
| DotMusic Limited
| Extensive request for documents and other information to DotMusic's failed [[Community Priority Evaluation]] (CPE) for [[.music]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160429-1-dotmusic-request-29apr16-en.pdf Full request].
| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160429-1-dotmusic-response-supporting-docs-15may16-en.pdf Provided email correspondence] between ICANN staff and the CPE provider; otherwise declined to disclose documents
| 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9
| As with other DIDP requests relating to CPEs, this one did not succeed beyond a single transactional email chain between ICANN and the CPE provider.
|}
|}
==References==
==References==