Changes

[[File:DIDP Outcomes as of 2021.jpg|800px|right]]

[[File:DIDP Outcomes as of 2021.jpg|800px|right]]

Since the initiation of the DIDP process, 166 DIDP requests have been filed (as of December 2021). Of those, 78 requests were declined, 45 were responded to with links to publicly available information, and 41 resulted in the disclosure of some amount of new information (documentary or otherwise). These statistics are based on the review of all requests by ICANNWiki editors.  

Since the initiation of the DIDP process, 166 DIDP requests have been filed (as of December 2021). Of those, 78 requests were declined, 45 were responded to with links to publicly available information, and 41 resulted in the disclosure of some amount of new information (documentary or otherwise). These statistics are based on the review of all requests by ICANNWiki editors.  

* Characterization of a request as "Declined" occurs in situations where, whether or not links to publicly available information was provided, the response included rationales for rejection of all or part of a request for additional documents.  

* ''Declined: the response included rationales for rejection of all or part of a request for additional documents'' <br/>The characterization of a request as "Declined" occurs in situations where, whether or not links to publicly available information are provided, the response includes rationales for the rejection of all or part of a request for additional documents.  

* "Provided Public Information," by contrast, involves situations where the vast majority of the information sought was available in public documents. While ICANN may have cited a threshold rationale (i.e., no obligation to compile or create responsive documents), there was essentially no more information beyond the publicly available resources, and so nothing further to produce. While all "Provided Public Information" responses are, strictly speaking, denied requests for additional or non-public documentary information, the responses still sufficiently answer the questions posed by the requester.  

* ''Pointed to Public Information: the response denies the request for additional documentary information; however, it sufficiently answers the questions posed by the requester by pointing to publically available documents'' <br/>The characterization of "Provided Public Information" involves situations where the vast majority of the information sought is already available in public documents. ICANN may cite a threshold rationale (i.e., no obligation to compile or create responsive documents), but there is essentially no more information beyond the publicly available resources; thus, there is nothing further to produce.  

* "Information Disclosed" responses either disclosed actual documents or provided new information to the requester.

* ''Information Disclosed: the response either discloses actual documents or provides new information to the requester''<br/> In most cases, only some of the documents responsive to the request were disclosed. This category also contains situations where no documents were available (or requested) but information or context could be provided nonetheless.

===Top Requesters & Topics Thus Far===

===Top Requesters & Topics Thus Far===

The Indian Centre for Internet & Society is by far the top user of the DIDP process, accounting for over one-quarter of the submitted requests (as of December 2021). Often the requests have sought details about or taken issue with the operations of the ICANN organization or board. Other times, the requests reflect [[https://icannwiki.org/ICANN_Historical_Timeline|eras in ICANN's history]], such as when ICANN was running the New gTLD Program.  

The Indian Centre for Internet & Society is by far the top user of the DIDP process, accounting for over a quarter of the submitted requests (as of December 2021). The most frequent requestors have tended to be lawyers, journalists, representatives from Internet governance organizations, and staunch supporters of ICANN's commitment to the [[Multistakeholder Model]].

 

Often the requests have sought details about or more [[transparency]]/[[accountability]] in terms of ICANN organization or board operations. Other times, the requests reflect [[ICANN_Historical_Timeline|eras of ICANN's history]], such as when ICANN was running the New gTLD Program.  

{| class="wikitable"  

{| class="wikitable"  

| Information related to [[ICANN Board]] [https://features.icann.org/resolutions decisions] and ICANN-involved disputes

| Information related to [[ICANN Board]] [https://features.icann.org/resolutions decisions] and ICANN-involved disputes

|}

|}

===2021 Proposed Changes===

===2021 Proposed Changes===

In 2021, ICANN Org proposed the following changes.

In 2021, ICANN Org proposed the following changes.

From October to December 2021, ICANN requested feedback on several proposed changes to the DIDP based on the [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]] Work Stream 2 recommendations.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-revisions-to-the-icann-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-21-10-2021 Proposed Revisions to the ICANN  DIDP]</ref>  

From October to December 2021, ICANN requested feedback on several proposed changes to the DIDP based on the [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability]] Work Stream 2 recommendations.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/proposed-revisions-to-the-icann-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-21-10-2021 Proposed Revisions to the ICANN  DIDP]</ref>  

====Reactions to the Proposed Changes====

====Reactions to the Proposed Changes====

On January 28, 2022, ICANN org released a summary report of the eight comments it received, five of which were from community groups and three from individuals, and all of which emphasized the role of the DIDP mechanism in raising ICANN's level of [[transparency]] and [[accountability]].<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref> Only one commenter, [[Samwel Kariuki]], supported the proposed changes. One commenter, [[George Kirikos]] on behalf of [[Leap of Faith]], objected to the DIDP in its entirety, arguing that ICANN org should release all of its documentation.  

On January 28, 2022, ICANN org released a summary report of the eight comments it received, five of which were from community groups and three from individuals, and all of which emphasized the role of the DIDP mechanism in raising ICANN's level of [[transparency]] and [[accountability]].<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref> Only one commenter, [[Samwel Kariuki]], supported the proposed changes. One commenter, [[George Kirikos]] on behalf of [[Leap of Faith]], objected to the DIDP in its entirety, arguing that ICANN org should release all of its documentation.<Br/>

 

'''Issues with Conditions of Nondisclosure'''<br/>

=====Issues with Conditions of Nondisclosure=====

[[Arif Ali]], [[Jan Janssen]], [[John Murino]], [[Michael Palage]], [[Flip Petillion]], and [[Mike Rodenbaugh]] together argued that the proposed DIDP revisions do not provide for disclosure of documents in redacted or severed form, do not require the provision of a rationale for withholding responsive information as recommended in WS2, ''decrease'' transparency, and, thus, are contrary to the WS2 recommendations and [[ICANN Bylaws]]. The [[BC]] recommended that DIDP responses either make the requested documents available or provide clear, specific reasons for nondisclosure. The [[ALAC]], [[RySG]], and [[TurnCommerce]] the trade secrets, commercial/financial information, and internal policies and procedures condition for nondisclosure is too broad. <br/>

[[Arif Ali]], [[Jan Janssen]], [[John Murino]], [[Michael Palage]], [[Flip Petillion]], and [[Mike Rodenbaugh]] together argued that the proposed DIDP revisions do not provide for disclosure of documents in redacted or severed form, do not require the provision of a rationale for withholding responsive information as recommended in WS2, ''decrease'' transparency, and, thus, are contrary to the WS2 recommendations and [[ICANN Bylaws]]. The [[BC]] recommended that DIDP responses either make the requested documents available or provide clear, specific reasons for nondisclosure. The [[ALAC]], [[RySG]], and [[TurnCommerce]] the trade secrets, commercial/financial information, and internal policies and procedures condition for nondisclosure is too broad.  

'''Issues with the Process'''<br/>

====Issues with the Process====

[[Ephraim Percy Kenyanito]], on behalf of [[Article 19]], recommended that ICANN org commit to publishing a DIDP request as soon as it is received. ICANN org will consider this suggestion but noted that it would not need to reflect it within the DIDP in order for it to become part of ICANN org’s practice, and it would not change the DIDP on this issue.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref> <br/>

[[Ephraim Percy Kenyanito]], on behalf of [[Article 19]], recommended that ICANN org commit to publishing a DIDP request as soon as it is received. ICANN org will consider this suggestion but noted that it would not need to reflect it within the DIDP in order for it to become part of ICANN org’s practice, and it would not change the DIDP on this issue.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref>  

'''Issues with Review/Challenge Mechanisms'''<br/>

=====Issues with Review/Challenge Mechanisms=====

The ALAC, A19, BC, Leap of Faith, and RySG supported expanding the role of the Ombudsman to include providing the mechanism for requestors seeking review of DIDP responses. The ALAC recommended that the DIDP and responses refer requestors to review mechanisms for challenging DIDP responses. The BC suggested a 30-day window within which a requester can seek a review of a denial of disclosure. The BC suggested that requestors submit a request for review and the reason for denial of disclosure, which the Ombudsman should assess within 30 days of receipt. The BC said the Ombuds’ review should be published as advisory to the ICANN org, with 14 days to respond. The RySG stated that the Ombuds would likely have to recuse themselves from any [[Reconsideration]] request challenging a DIDP response they had reviewed and the [[Complaints Office]] may be better suited for this role.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref>

The ALAC, A19, BC, Leap of Faith, and RySG supported expanding the role of the Ombudsman to include providing the mechanism for requestors seeking review of DIDP responses. The ALAC recommended that the DIDP and responses refer requestors to review mechanisms for challenging DIDP responses. The BC suggested a 30-day window within which a requester can seek a review of a denial of disclosure. The BC suggested that requestors submit a request for review and the reason for denial of disclosure, which the Ombudsman should assess within 30 days of receipt. The BC said the Ombuds’ review should be published as advisory to the ICANN org, with 14 days to respond. The RySG stated that the Ombuds would likely have to recuse themselves from any [[Reconsideration]] request challenging a DIDP response they had reviewed and the [[Complaints Office]] may be better suited for this role.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref>

==Criticism==

==Criticism==

::*# 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>

::*# 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>  

::* [[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 name="sunbelt">[https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7jd31k0z40fdoc/36_Abstracts.pdf?dl=0 International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 2016 - Abstracts Archive]</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

*# ICANN [[Stakeholder Groups]]/[[Working Group]]s are more likely to receive DCND in every condition category, except the "Affects Individual" condition

*# ICANN [[Stakeholder Groups]]/[[Working Group]]s are more likely to receive DCND in every condition category, except the "Affects Individual" condition

*# "Burdensome conditions" are rarely imposed on [[:Category:Legal Practices|law firms]], which tend to request precise information about a specific case

*# "Burdensome conditions" are rarely imposed on [[:Category:Legal Practices|law firms]], which tend to request precise information about a specific case

*# [[Registrant]]s are less likely to receive ICANN "Integrity" conditions as they are more concerned about their own domain name registrations than about ICANN   

*# [[Registrant]]s are less likely to receive ICANN "Integrity" conditions as they are more concerned about their own domain name registrations than about ICANN   

*# "Confidential External Business Information" conditions are less likely to be imposed on the internet [[:Category:Non-Profit|non-profits]], as they are more interested in ICANN’s interface with [[Internet Governance]] than third-party business interests.<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>

*# "Confidential External Business Information" conditions are less likely to be imposed on the internet [[:Category:Non-Profit|non-profits]], as they are more interested in ICANN’s interface with [[Internet Governance]] than third-party business interests.<ref name="sunbelt" />

* Indian stakeholders have cited difficulties in accessing documents under DIDP and asked for greater transparency.<ref>[https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/IntOrganizations/CCG_NLU.pdf Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Speech and Expression: Study on Access to Information in International Organizations pg. 5]</ref>   

* Indian stakeholders have cited difficulties in accessing documents under DIDP and asked for greater transparency.<ref>[https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/IntOrganizations/CCG_NLU.pdf Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University, Delhi Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Speech and Expression: Study on Access to Information in International Organizations pg. 5]</ref>   

** [[Padmini Baruah]], of [[The Centre for Internet and Society]], explains that ICANN deflects most requests for information, using clauses about internal processes, stakeholder discussions, protecting financial interests of third parties (cited in over 50% of the responses up to 2016) to avoid disclosing its [[Contractual Compliance]] audits and reports of abuse to [[registrar]]s. Baruah's complaint is that because ICANN regulates a global public good, it should be far more open.<ref name="baruah">[https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icanns-didp-ii Padmini Baruah, Peering behind the veil of ICANN's DIDP (II), CIS-India]</ref> Baruah presented on this topic at an [[NCUC]] session during [[ICANN 55]], and [[George Sadowsky]] was invited to comment on her findings. He noted that there were some discrepancies between Baruah's assessments of the history of the DIDP mechanism and ICANN staff's assessment of the same history.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-ncuc/transcript-ncuc-08mar16-en ICANN 55 Archive - Transcript, Non-Commercial Users Constituency Meeting], March 8, 2016 (starting at page 59) (PDF)</ref> Baruah subsequently submitted a DIDP request in an attempt to reconcile her analysis with that of ICANN staff. ICANN responded in part:

** [[Padmini Baruah]], of [[The Centre for Internet and Society]], explains that ICANN deflects most requests for information, using clauses about internal processes, stakeholder discussions, protecting financial interests of third parties (cited in over 50% of the responses up to 2016) to avoid disclosing its [[Contractual Compliance]] audits and reports of abuse to [[registrar]]s. Baruah's complaint is that because ICANN regulates a global public good, it should be far more open.<ref name="baruah">[https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icanns-didp-ii Padmini Baruah, Peering behind the veil of ICANN's DIDP (II), CIS-India]</ref> Baruah presented on this topic at an [[NCUC]] session during [[ICANN 55]], and [[George Sadowsky]] was invited to comment on her findings. He noted that there were some discrepancies between Baruah's assessments of the history of the DIDP mechanism and ICANN staff's assessment of the same history.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-ncuc/transcript-ncuc-08mar16-en ICANN 55 Archive - Transcript, Non-Commercial Users Constituency Meeting], March 8, 2016 (starting at page 59) (PDF)</ref> Baruah subsequently submitted a DIDP request in an attempt to reconcile her analysis with that of ICANN staff. ICANN responded in part:

<blockquote> 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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf ICANN Staff response to DIDP Request 20161024-4], May 21, 2016 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

:<blockquote> 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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf ICANN Staff response to DIDP Request 20161024-4], May 21, 2016 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

ICANNWiki editors' own work reviewing DIDP requests for the Summary Tables below did find that some of Baruah's assessments of staff responsiveness to requests were technically inaccurate for various reasons. However, it is notable that those inaccuracies more often erred on the side of "responsiveness," rather than refusal to submit information. This is in part because of ICANN's efforts to ensure that every DIDP response provides links to publicly available documents (which are, strictly speaking, not disclosures of documentary information). Baruah tended to note these responses as "partly" providing information under the policy.<ref name="baruah" />

ICANNWiki editors' own work reviewing DIDP requests for the Summary Tables below did find that some of Baruah's assessments of staff responsiveness to requests were technically inaccurate for various reasons. However, it is notable that those inaccuracies more often erred on the side of "responsiveness," rather than refusal to submit information. This is in part because of ICANN's efforts to ensure that every DIDP response provides links to publicly available documents (which are, strictly speaking, not disclosures of documentary information). Baruah tended to note these responses as "partly" providing information under the policy.<ref name="baruah" />

|-

|-

| 6 February 2009

| 6 February 2009

| Christopher Cielinski, Commercial Contract Inc.

| [[Christopher Cielinski]], Commercial Contract Inc.

| Copy of original financial support and cover letter provided to ICANN by Commercial Connect, LLC as a part of their application for the .shop/.mall/.svc TLD

| Copy of original financial support and cover letter provided to ICANN by Commercial Connect, LLC as a part of their application for the .shop/.mall/.svc TLD

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090206-1/cielinski-response-06mar09-en.pdf Unable to provide a response]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090206-1/cielinski-response-06mar09-en.pdf Unable to provide a response]

|-

|-

| 17 September 2009

| 17 September 2009

| Victoria McEvedy

| [[Victoria McEvedy]]

| Contractual provisions, policies, and other protections of staff and secretariat impartiality when dealing with [[SO]]s ([[GNSO]], specifically, but information requested for all three). [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090917-1/mcevedy-request-17sep09-en.pdf Full request here]

| Contractual provisions, policies, and other protections of staff and secretariat impartiality when dealing with [[SO]]s ([[GNSO]], specifically, but information requested for all three). [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090917-1/mcevedy-request-17sep09-en.pdf Full request here]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090917-1/mcevedy-response-16oct09-en.pdf Provided partial information]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090917-1/mcevedy-response-16oct09-en.pdf Provided partial information]

|-

|-

| 20 August 2010

| 20 August 2010

| Barry Carter

| [[Barry Carter]]

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100820-1/carter-request-20aug10-en.pdf list of all registered domains] and all public [[registrant]] information.

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100820-1/carter-request-20aug10-en.pdf list of all registered domains] and all public [[registrant]] information.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100820-1/carter-response-19sep10-en.pdf Pointed to publicly available records], declined to create or compile documents.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100820-1/carter-response-19sep10-en.pdf Pointed to publicly available records], declined to create or compile documents.

|-

|-

| 1 December 2010

| 1 December 2010

| Iliya Bazlyankov

| [[Iliya Bazlyankov]]

| The criteria and decision process used to assess, and ultimately "reject" Bulgaria's application for an [[Internationalized Domain Name|IDN string]]

| The criteria and decision process used to assess, and ultimately "reject" Bulgaria's application for an [[Internationalized Domain Name|IDN string]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101201-1/bazlyankov-response-30dec10-en.pdf Declined]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101201-1/bazlyankov-response-30dec10-en.pdf Declined]

|-

|-

| 7 December 2010

| 7 December 2010

| Jorge Sabate

| [[Jorge Sabate]]

| A list of all registered domains and registrant information - failing that, the "dste [sic] was created the domain name christiansmith.com"

| A list of all registered domains and registrant information - failing that, the "dste [sic] was created the domain name christiansmith.com"

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101207-1/sabate-response-06jan11-en.pdf Declined]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101207-1/sabate-response-06jan11-en.pdf Declined]

| 12

| 12

| Overly broad; WHOIS search would provide information about specific domains

| Overly broad; [[WHOIS]] search would provide information about specific domains

|-

|-

| 4 November 2010

| 4 November 2010

| Denise Subramaniam

| [[Denise Subramaniam]]

| Requests for information regarding the de-accreditation of [[Internet.bs#ICANN Intervention|4Domains, Inc.]], including whether 4Domains maintained commercial liability insurance, and what measures ICANN typically took to protect registrants.

| Requests for information regarding the de-accreditation of [[Internet.bs#ICANN Intervention|4Domains, Inc.]], including whether 4Domains maintained commercial liability insurance, and what measures ICANN typically took to protect registrants.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101108-1/subramaniam-response-08dec10-en.pdf Provided partial response], including the [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101108-1/subramaniam-supporting-docs-08nov10-en.pdf insurance certificate] for 4Domains from the original [[RAA]] process.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101108-1/subramaniam-response-08dec10-en.pdf Provided partial response], including the [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20101108-1/subramaniam-supporting-docs-08nov10-en.pdf insurance certificate] for 4Domains from the original [[RAA]] process.

|-

|-

| 16 March 2011

| 16 March 2011

| Kieren McCarthy

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

| Documents related to correspondence between ICANN and the GAC, including subsequent discussions regarding how to handle disagreements between ICANN and the GAC.

| Documents related to correspondence between ICANN and the [[GAC]], including subsequent discussions regarding how to handle disagreements between ICANN and the GAC.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110316-1/mccarthy-response-15apr11-en.pdf Request was deemed moot]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110316-1/mccarthy-response-15apr11-en.pdf Request was deemed moot]

| No

| No

|-

|-

| 11 April 2011

| 11 April 2011

| Diane Duke

| [[Diane Duke]]

| Documentation relating to the International Foundation for Online Responsibility, and ICM Registry's contracts for labeling and monitoring (still regarding ICM's [[.xxx]] application)

| Documentation relating to the International Foundation for Online Responsibility, and ICM Registry's contracts for labeling and monitoring (still regarding ICM's [[.xxx]] application)

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110411-1/duke-response-11may11-en.pdf Declined] to produce documents on threshold grounds

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110411-1/duke-response-11may11-en.pdf Declined] to produce documents on threshold grounds

|-

|-

| 23 May 2011

| 23 May 2011

| Kevin Murphy

| [[Kevin Murphy]]

| Transcripts, documents, and any other record of [[Larry Strickling]]'s meeting with ICANN board members at [[ICANN 39]] in Cartagena, as well as any similar materials from [[ICANN 40]] in San Francisco, if a similar meeting occurred there

| Transcripts, documents, and any other record of [[Larry Strickling]]'s meeting with ICANN board members at [[ICANN 39]] in Cartagena, as well as any similar materials from [[ICANN 40]] in San Francisco if a similar meeting occurred there

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110523-1/murphy-response-22jun11-en.pdf Provided link to Cartagena meeting]; could not produce documentation re: San Francisco

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110523-1/murphy-response-22jun11-en.pdf Provided link to Cartagena meeting]; could not produce documentation re: San Francisco

| No

| No

|-

|-

| 13 June 2011

| 13 June 2011

| Kieren McCarthy

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

| Scorecard with respect to the status of implementation of the ATRT

| Scorecard with respect to the status of implementation of the ATRT

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110613-1/mccarthy-response-13jul11-en.pdf Pointed to publicly available report] from the ATRT team; no documents were produced

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110613-1/mccarthy-response-13jul11-en.pdf Pointed to publicly available report] from the ATRT team; no documents were produced