Documentary Information Disclosure Policy

Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) is intended to ensure that ICANN makes available to the public information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operations and within ICANN's possession, custody, or control unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.

Overview

The DIDP is a fundamental component of ICANN's efforts at fulfilling its commitment to transparency. Anyone can request documents by emailing ICANN at didp [@] icann.org. ICANN will respond to the request within 30 calendar days. ICANN will inform the requester in writing as to when a response will be provided if the organization cannot respond within the first month and explain why the extension is necessary. If ICANN denies the information request, it will provide a written statement identifying the reasons for the denial. If requestors want to appeal their decision, they can file a Reconsideration request. ICANN posts all requests and responses on its website.

DIDP Process

The DIDP process is a series of steps taken after each request is submitted:

1. Upon receipt of a DIDP Request, an ICANN staffer reviews the request and identifies the information requested, who may be in possession of or have knowledge of the information.
2. The ICANN staffer then interviews the relevant staff members and performs a document search.
3. The ICANN staffer collects the documents and reviews whether they answer the questions asked in the request and/or are subject to the Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure.
4. If the document falls under any of the Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure, a review is conducted as to whether the public interest in disclosing the documentary information outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure.
5. Documents that are responsive and appropriate for public disclosure are posted on ICANN’s website. If ICANN deems a document's disclosure to be premature, ICANN will indicate it in its response to the request and notify the requestor when the document is posted.
6. The ICANN staffer prepares an email response to the DIDP Request and posts the request and response and Request to the DIDP page.

These steps are strictly interpreted, and the process contains a number of intrinsic rationales for rejection of portions or all of a DIDP request. The request must ask for documents that are: in ICANN's control or custody; not publicly available at the time of the request; responsive to the request; and not subject to Defined Conditions of Disclosure.

• Documents are defined as existing, written records. Documents that do not exist cannot be produced If there is information that would be responsive to the request if they existed in documentary form, or that could be compiled from other existing documents to respond to the request, ICANN is not responsible for creating or compiling those documents.
• In ICANN's control or custody generally means that ICANN, in the course of its operations, either received and retained documents from other parties, or generated them in fulfillment of a specific mandate or objective. ICANN will reject requests for documentary information that it does not control. Even in situations where ICANN is participating in a collaborative process, if the records of the process are stored outside of ICANN, a DIDP request will be met with a negative response.
• Not publicly available is a requirement that would seem straightforward. However, the quantity and breadth of information available is a challenge. As ICANN's 2021 Transparency Report notes: "Over ICANN’s history, the Board, community, and org have produced and accumulated thousands of pieces of unstructured content spread across 38 different public sites. This content continues to grow by up to 30% each year. The org currently surfaces this content through multiple unconnected platforms with differing foundational technologies that are non-scalable, may be vulnerable, and are no longer fit for purpose." As a result, most responses to DIDP requests take pains to identify and provide links to publicly available information that may have escaped the notice of the requester.
• The identification of responsive documents is the least problematic of the criteria defined by the process. The question of whether existing, nonpublic documents are responsive to the DIDP request appears to be straightforward for staff. However, many responsive documents may be withheld for other reasons.
• Defined Conditions of Nondisclosure are discussed in the next section.

Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure

ICANN does not disclose documentary information that is:

1. from a government or international organization if it would prejudice ICANN's relationship with that party.
2. internal and would compromise ICANN's deliberative decision-making process by inhibiting communication with ICANN Board directors, advisors, staff, consultants, contractors, or agents.
3. prepared for exchange between ICANN, its constituents, and/or other entities with which ICANN cooperates that would compromise the decision-making process between them
4. personnel, medical, contractual, remuneration, or similar records or internal appeals mechanisms and investigations that would constitute an invasion of personal privacy
5. provided to ICANN that would materially prejudice the party's commercial, financial, and/or competitive interests or is pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement
6. confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures
7. likely to endanger the life, health, or safety of any individual or materially prejudice the administration of justice
8. subject to attorney-client privilege, or any other applicable privilege
9. a draft of correspondence, reports, documents, agreements, contracts, emails, or any other form of communication
10. related to the security and stability of the Internet, including the operation of the L Root or any changes, modifications, or additions to the root zone.
11. a trade secret or commercial/financial information not publicly disclosed by ICANN
12. in response to an unreasonable, overly burdensome, unfeasible, or abusive/vexatious request

These twelve situations are referred to in DIDP policy documents and responses as Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure. If one or more of the Defined Conditions apply to a document, staff is instructed to conduct a balancing test:

To the extent that any responsive documents fall within any Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure, a review is conducted as to whether, under the particular circumstances, the public interest in disclosing the documentary information outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure.

Although in theory the balancing test applies to all Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure, it is most frequently cited in assessment of conditions 2 and 3, where the conditions specifically address a risk of compromising ICANN board and org's ability to deliberate and make decisions.

Other Rationales for Negative Responses to Requests

ICANN's DIDP policy specifies that "ICANN shall not be required to create or compile summaries of any documented information, and shall not be required to respond to requests seeking information that is already publicly available." In many responses to DIDP requests, ICANN often cites this section in responding to elements of the request.

The contention that information is "publicly available" is a topic of several specific and organizational reviews, as well as the Cross Community Working Group on Accountability.

History

From 2007 to 2008, ICANN developed the original DIDP following its community consultation on the Accountability and Transparency Frameworks and Principles. The first use of the DIDP was in September 2008, by Danny Younger, who requested information about a couple of registrar accreditation applications submitted to ICANN.

In 2012, ICANN updated the policy following another community consultation.

2021 Proposed Changes

In 2021, ICANN Org proposed the following changes.

1. Delete: "NOTE: With the exception of personal email addresses, phone numbers and mailing addresses, DIDP Requests are otherwise posted in full on ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)’s website, unless there are exceptional circumstances requiring further redaction."
2. Replace "appeal a denial of disclosure" with "seek review of ICANN’s DIDP Response"
3. Add information on how to submit a request: "Any member of the public may submit a DIDP request to ICANN org. To submit a DIDP request, please send an email to didp@icann.org describing the documentary information you are seeking. Please provide as much detail as possible to identify the party submitting the request and the documents requested. If you have a question or need assistance with submitting a DIDP request, please contact the DIDP team at didp@icann.org."
4. Include option for additional 30 days to original 30-day response window: "ICANN org will provide a written response to all DIDP requests, as soon as practicable within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request, unless it is not feasible to do so. If that time frame cannot be met, ICANN org will inform the requestor in writing as to when a response will be provided, which shall not be longer than an additional 30 calendar days and explain the reasons necessary for the extension of time to respond."
5. Replace "Trade secrets and commercial and financial information not publicly disclosed by ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers)." with "Materials, including but not limited to, trade secrets, commercial and financial information, confidential business information, and internal policies and procedures, the disclosure of which could materially harm ICANN’s financial or business interests or the commercial interests of its stakeholders who have those interests. Where the disclosure of documentary information depends upon prior approval from a third party, ICANN org will contact the third party to determine whether they would consent to the disclosure in accordance with the DIDP Response Process."
6. Add: "ICANN may choose to, however, create new documentary information to make public in response to a request under this DIDP as ICANN deems feasible and necessary if there is little to no information available on the ICANN website."
7. Add periodic review: "ICANN will review the DIDP Policy and the DIDP Response Process every five years."

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. 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. 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.

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.

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.

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 Officer may be better suited for this role.

Criticism

• As part of the Public Comment proceedings for ICANN's proposed revisions to its current DIDP,

• The 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.
• 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:
  1. Allow Ombuds to oversee the mechanism for requestor review of ICANN DIDP responses;
  2. Document in DIDP Policy recourse when DIDP is not fully satisfied; and
  3. Revise the new language on conditions for nondisclosure.
• 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.

• 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." Furthermore, her statistical p* models demonstrate that
  1. ICANN Organization considers lengthier submissions to be more likely to request contentious information and are more likely to apply DCND to them
  2. ICANN Stakeholder Groups/Working Groups are more likely to receive DCND in every condition category, except the "Affects Individual" condition
  3. "Burdensome conditions" are rarely imposed on law firms, which tend to request precise information about a specific case
  4. Registrants are less likely to receive ICANN "Integrity" conditions as they are more concerned about their own domain name registrations than about ICANN
  5. "Confidential External Business Information" conditions are less likely to be imposed on internet non-profits, as they are more interested in ICANN’s interface with Internet Governance than third-party business interests.
• Indian stakeholders have cited difficulties in accessing documents under DIDP and asked for greater transparency.
  • 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 registrars. Baruah's complaint is that because ICANN regulates a global public good, it should be far more open.

Summary Tables of DIDP Requests & Responses

Submission Date	Requester	Subject	ICANN Response (PDF)	Nondisclosure Conditions Cited	Notes
24 September 2008	Danny Younger	Copies of RAAs for Brandon Gray Internet Services Inc., DBA Namejuice.com, EstDomains.Inc	Provided some information	5
21 November 2008	Brian Krebs	Officers listed on the RAA between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphin Inc.	No information available	No	Only officer listed on the application for accreditation was already public
6 February 2009	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	Unable to provide a response	Yes - no specific condition cited. Implication is either 5 or 6	Commercial Connect, LLC was the applicant - Commercial Connect, Inc. does not have access to information that another legal entity requested be kept confidential
6 March 2009	Edward Hasbrouck	Copies of documents relating to the Independent Review Process	Partial responses to requests, largely pointing to publicly available information	References or allusions to 2, 6, 9, & 12	The response noted that no response was required when information was publicly available. "In a good faith effort to be as responsible as possible, ICANN, however, provides a point‐by‐point response below."
3 April 2009	Edward Hasbrouck	Documentation relating to the ICANN Ombudsman and his appointment	Declined - information was received and answered already		All information publicly available (specifically because Hasbrouck's questions were already answered at the ICANN 34) public forum
8 May 2009	Tim Ruiz (GoDaddy)	Full Request Here - Form 990 for Fiscal Year Ending 30 June 2008; details regarding the $240,000 expenditures for Lobbying Activities as reported on Schedule A Part VI‐B of Form 990 for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008; identification of the contributors redacted on Schedule B of Form 990 for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008; criteria or goals for bonuses awarded to CEO Paul Twomey during his tenure in 2004, 2005, 2006, as well as a bonus awarded in 2008; and documents relating to Vendors who provided technical or professional services to the Board and Staff for 2007, 2008, and 2009	Provided some information	2, 4, 5, 6, 11, & 12
17 September 2009	Victoria McEvedy	Contractual provisions, policies, and other protections of staff and secretariat impartiality when dealing with SOs (GNSO, specifically, but information requested for all three). Full request here	Provided partial information	4 & 6
25 September 2009	Alejandra Barrientos	Needed to learn about a specific provision of RFC 1591	Provided	No
27 April 2010	Michael Palage	Basis for "funnel request" processing within the RSEP, and information related to the "project plan" for the New gTLD Program announced at ICANN 36 in Seoul.	Partially provided information	No	Project plan had not yet been posted and would be posted via usual methods
29 April 2010	Eric Brunner-Williams	“Correspondence, minutes, etc. between ICANN and CRAI, which set forth the scope of the CRAI economic research published on 10/24/08.”	Responded providing an email regarding the CRAI SOW, and pointed requester to the CRAI final report.	No
24 June 2010	Michael Palage	Documents relating to an agreement between ICANN and the New South Wales government regarding the funding of ICANN Sydney's office.	Could not divulge details of a confidential agreement. ICANN subsequently requested whether NSW would allow disclosure; that request was denied.	1 & 5
20 August 2010	Barry Carter	A list of all registered domains and all public registrant information.	Provided partial information. Directed the requestor towards publicly available records.	12	Given that the number of registered domain names in gTLDs in 2010 was over 120 million, this request was massively broad.
8 September 2010	Diane Duke	Documentation pertaining to ICM Registry's application for the .xxx TLD	Denied request	5	The publicly available information regarding ICM's application was all that was available - ICM had requested that portions of their submissions be kept confidential.
27 September 2010	Evan Leibovitch and Avri Doria	Transcripts & presentation materials for the staff report to the Board retreat on the issue of the New gTLD Program Applicant Support, as well as a vote count on any decisions taken by the board regarding that topic.	No	No	The Board Book from the retreat was scheduled to be released after approval of the minutes; preliminary report contained the relevant vote tally; staff presentations are not transcripted, so that could not be provided.
1 December 2010	Iliya Bazlyankov	The criteria and decision process used to assess, and ultimately "reject" Bulgaria's application for an IDN string	Denied	2, 3, 5, & 11	Response notes that IDN applications are not "rejected"
7 December 2010	Jorge Sabate	A list of all registered domains and registrant information - failing that, the "dste [sic] was created the domain name christiansmith.com"	Denied	12	Overly broad, WHOIS search would provide information about specific domains
4 November 2010	Denise Subramaniam	Requests for information regarding the de-accreditation of 4Domains, Inc., including whether 4Domains maintained commercial liability insurance, and what measures ICANN typically took to protect registrants.	Provided partial response, including the insurance certificate for 4Domains from the original RAA process.	4
10 March 2011	Michael Palage	Information related to ICANN's management of the L root server, including documents or explanations regarding why the L root's directory might not have been identical to the A root server in 2007. Full request here	Denied in large part	5, 8, 9, & 10	Response notes both that information is publicly available, and that ICANN is not responsible for "compiling" information in response to a DIDP request.
16 March 2011	Kieren McCarthy	Documents related to correspondence between ICANN and the GAC, including subsequent discussions regarding how to handle disagreements between ICANN and the GAC.	Request was deemed moot	No	By the time ICANN issued a response, almost all of the information had been published, and the remainder was scheduled to be released upon approval of the minutes in which they were contanied.
11 April 2011	Diane Duke	Documentation relating to the International Foundation for Online Responsibility, and ICM Registry's contracts for labelling and monitoring (still regarding ICM's .xxx application	No	No	ICANN did not possess that information
23 May 2011	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	Provided link to Cartagena meeting	No	No meeting occurred in San Francisco
13 June 2011	Kieren McCarthy	Scorecard with respect to the status of implementation of the ATRT	Pointed to publicly available report from the ATRT team	No
8 July 2011	John Bell, The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition	Information related to the change of the .jobs "Purpose" field in the IANA Root Zone Database.	Provided partial information, including a redacted copy of the TLD change request submitted to IANA	6, 8, & 10	Also referenced the DIDP provision that ICANN is not responsible for "compiling" information
10 August 2011	James Keener	Copy of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphins Inc. as well as names on the application	Information provided - 2005 RAA and 2010 RAA	No
20 August 2011	Kieren McCarthy	List of Board Meetings, and their agendas and minutes, between 29 July 2011 and 16 August 2011	Pointed to Board Meetings page on ICANN.org	No
2 September 2011	Paul McGrady	Recordings and transcripts from "all public meetings" from May 2009 to the present (September 2011), "in which a non-Staff member made a comment which was recorded or transcribed."	Denied	"May include, but are not limited to," 1	Also noted that ICANN is not obligated to compile information in response to requests
16 September 2011	Michael Palage	Information and financial disclosures regarding ICANN's IDN Fast Track applications processing, including an assessment of the cost efficiency of the processing of the applications, and a request to square the relatively minimal fee amounts collected for all the relevant IDN fast track applications, with the $185,000 application proposed for the New gTLD Program. (Full request included in ICANN's response.)	Provided links to publicly available cost and budget reports	No	Declined to respond to questions that were not specific to "documents" - suggested that Palage speak directly with staff outside DIDP process
19 September - 20 October 2011	Kieren McCarthy	Three separate DIDP requests related to McCarthy's earlier request for information about board meetings that occurred in the summer of 2011; the staff's interpretation of DIDP's scope and breadth; and the process used in researching & creating the responses to the DIDP requests.	Provided partial information initially; second response re: internal communication around DIDP requests; third response, citing multiple conditions for non-disclosure	2, 6, 8, & 9	This "conversation" via DIDP is noteworthy for providing some insight into ICANN's interpretation of the DIDP and its implementation practices
27 October 2011	Kieren McCarthy	Requesting a copy of ICANN's whistleblower policy	Provided context but not the policy	4, 6, & 9
27 October 2011	Kieren McCarthy	Requesting a copy of the ATRT1 implementation plan	Plan was detailed in an ATRT report	No
29 November 2011	R. Shawn Gunnarson	Staff response to McCarthy's DIDP request regarding ATRT1 contained a broken link	Provided correct URL	No
7 December 2011	R. Shawn Gunnarson	Information related to the implementation of the ATRT1 recommendation that ICANN hire an independent expert to review its transparency mechanisms	No such documents	No
17 January 2012	George Todoroff	Names of the six DNS stability panel members that reviewed and subsequently rejected the Bulgarian IDN ccTLD Fast Track Process application in 2010.	Declined	2, 3, 5, & 11
15 March 2012	George Kirikos	Copies of "all correspondence submitted to ICANN in the past 24 months (from this request) that the staff have censored from the correspondence page"	Declined	12	Apart from citing the "overly broad" exclusion, ICANN noted that it is not responsible for "compiling" information.
3 April 2012	John Bell, The .jobs Charter Compliance Coalition	Documents, party correspondence, and other information relating to the arbitration initiated by Employ Media LLC (the registry for .jobs) arising from the breach notice issued by ICANN on February 27, 2011. Full request	Provided context and the link to publicly available information about the arbitration	1, 2, 4, 5, & 7
29 May 2012	Phil Corwin, Internet Commerce Association	Regarding the inclusion of a "URS Summit" line item in the proposed budget for the next fiscal year, a list of staff & board members who played "any non-clerical role whatsoever" in the implementation of Uniform Rapid Suspension, and all of their correspondence within and without the organization. [Full request]	Provided some history regarding the "URS Summit" line item, and the email chain that led to its removal from the draft budget	5, 8, & 9
8 August 2012	David Maher	All documents related to the creation & operation of the Trademark Clearinghouse, including the contract with the third party operator of the TMCH, and all information related to claims of intellectual property rights in specific strings. Full request	Provided some information & context, but largely declined to produce documents	5, 6, 8, 9, & 11
27 September 2012	George Kirikos	Updates to, and general improvement of, ICANN's litigation information and Independent Review Process pages. Full request	Thanked Kirikos for the suggestions, and noted that most of the specific pages he referenced had been updated.	No
29 January 2013	Igor Petrenko	A list of all registered domains	Declined	12	Noted that much of that information is publicly available
5 February 2013	Mary Blasy	Documents relating to Verisign's renewal of the .com domain name registry agreement, including communications with the US government's Department of Commerce and Justice, correspondence regarding renewal details, and other information	Pointed to publicly available information; declined to produce more	1, 2, 3, 5, 8, & 9
5 February 2013	Compwiz LLC	Requested printed copies of all correspondence between Network Solutions & ICANN regarding compwiz.com	Declined	2, 3, 5, 6, 8, & 9
26 March 2013	Oksana Prykhodko	Information re: delegation of the IDN ccTLD .ykp to Ukraine Full request	Pointed to public information but otherwise declined	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 10
28 March 2013	Flip Petillion	Documents regarding the decision to place .hotels and .hoteis in a string contention set; and a follow-up request for more specifics that were not previously answered in the first response.	Pointed to public information & provided some context; provided additional context in response to the subsequent request, but largely declined	3, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 11
13 April 2013	Kevin Murphy	Recordings and transcripts of the meetings between ICANN and community members in Belgium and Los Angeles in November 2012 relating to the Trademark Clearinghouse, from which the "strawman" solution emerged and was accepted.	Brussels was not recorded, LA was, recordings & transcripts would be posted shortly	No
22 April 2013	Thomas Indelicarto, Verisign	All correspondence received by ICANN regarding the organization's readiness to launch the New gTLD Program, all ICANN responses, and all communications between ICANN staff and any member of the SSAC from January 2013 to date of request	Pointed to the New gTLD Program's correspondence page, and declined	2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, & 12	Although the "SSAC communications" request only covered a four-month period, ICANN cited both the volume and variety of communications between ACs and staff and noted that Verisign did not specify what they were looking for with any particularity
7 May 2013	George Kirikos	ICANN's Board Finance Committee page was out of date; IRS form 990 for the fiscal year ending in June 2012 had not been published	Thanked Kirikos, noted that the BFC meeting minutes had been posted and that Form 990 would be posted once filed	No
26 June 2013	George Kirikos	Documents, recordings, and transcripts of meetings, presentations, and other work of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services	Pointed to public records, otherwise declined	2, 3, 5, & 9
24 July 2013	NCSG	Documents, recordings, transcripts, and communications related to the implementation of the Trademark Clearinghouse; the "TM+50" rule (allowing trademark owners to specify up to 50 previous infringing domain strings); the development of the "strawman" solution; the processing and evaluation of NCSG's Reconsideration Request 13-3 (dealing with the same topics); and correspondence between ICANN and specific parties in relation to those topics. Full request	Pointed to public record & otherwise declined	1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, & 12
10 August 2013	Mathilde Frison	Exchanges between ICANN and Registrars who had invoked ICANN's procedure for dealing with WHOIS conflicts with privacy laws; copies of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreements; and the contents of a letter mentioned at ICANN 46, from Europol to ICANN and the GAC expressing demands from law enforcement bodies regarding provisions in the 2013 RAA.	Responded that no documents related to the WHOIS policy existed; each RAA would be published once ICANN set a procedure for doing so; and declined to provide correspondence from Europol	2 & 9	The "letter" mentioned at the GAC meeting with law enforcement may never have been finalized by Europol - other communications were covered by the conditions for nondisclosure
13 January 2014	Kelsey Britton	Requesting the inclusion of information on new domain registrations within ICANN's Monthly Registry Reports	Information is not included in what is reported to ICANN. Directed Ms. Britton to the zone file database.	No
20 March 2014	ICOMP	Correspondence, deliberations, and other documents related to ICOMP's Community Objection to Google's application for .search. Full request	Responded that all information that was not already public was subject to a condition of nondisclosure	2, 5, 6, 9, & 11
15 May 2014	George Kirikos	ICANN’s unredacted Form 990 for the period ending 30 June 2013	Responded that the form was publicly posted once filed with the IRS	No
23 May 2014	Amazon EU S.a.r.l.	Extensive list of disclosure requests related to ICANN's acceptance of the third party neutral's decision to place Amazon's application for .amazon, as well as Chinese & Japanese character strings for the same name, be placed on hold.	Pointed to public record, did not find anything else that was not subject to a condition of nondisclosure	2, 3, 8, & 12	The request also asked for GAC deliberations & records on the issue, which ICANN noted was not something they would normally be in possession of.
4 August 2014	Donuts, Inc.; FairWinds Partners, LLC; Fegistry LLC; Famous Four Media Limited; Minds + Machines; and Radix FZC	All communications related to the successful Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) of HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l.'s community application for .hotel; all communications related to the appointment of the CPE Panel that produced the Report. Full request	Partial response & some context	2, 3, 5, 6, & 9	The request made efforts to overcome possible conditions of nondisclosure. However, from the ICANN response: "Although your analysis in the Request concluded that no Conditions for Nondisclosure should apply, ICANN must independently undertake the analysis of each Condition as it applies to the documentation at issue, and make the final determination as to whether any Nondisclosure Conditions apply. Here, for example, ICANN cannot violate contractual conditions that require ICANN to maintain items as confidential solely because the Request proffers that no such conditions apply. Similarly, ICANN does not release draft documentation – particularly if draft documentation was shared for the purpose of facilitating deliberations or decision making – because drafts are not reliable sources of information regarding what actually occurred or standards that were actually applied."
4 September 2014	Dot Registry LLC	A request for a copy of the contract between Community Priority Evaluation provider Economist Intelligent Unit (EIU) and ICANN.	Declined	2, 5, & 6	Another request that attempted to preempt the Defined Conditions of Disclosure
17 September 2014	fTLD Registry Servies LLC	A request for copies of any written agreements between ICANN and Donuts, Inc. regarding agreements to toll or extend deadlines for Donuts to file either a CPE or IRP request regarding the .insurance TLD	Declined	2 & 6	The response notes that, in addition to the defined conditions of nondisclosure, the ICANN Bylaws expressly state that materials submitted as part of an IRP or CEP shall remain confidential
26 September 2014	Afilias, BRS Media Inc., & Tin Dale, LLC	A request for documents relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process generally, as well documents pertaining to the criteria, information reviewed, and other deliberative process related to the CPE for .radio	Declined	2, 3, 5, 6, & 9
30 September 2014	Michael Palage	A request for accounting and financial information regarding applications for internationalized ccTLD strings, as well as information regarding ICANN's reporting processes, details of non-payment, and ICANN's treatment of non-payment.	Provided template email and accompanying invoice that is sent to IDN ccTLD applicants; otherwise, declined to provide additional documents	5, 6, & 11	ICANN noted that the differences in reporting of IDN application revenue was "a matter of formatting and not the result of an affirmative documented decision."
21 October 2014	Kevin Murphy	Letter from Rod Beckstrom to Maria Del Rosario Guerra dated December 1, 2009, the response to which was listed on ICANN's correspondence page.	Declined	1, 3, 5, 6, & 10	"Any other information [beyond what was already publicly available] regarding the redelegation process of the .CO ccTLD, including the 1 December Letter, is not appropriate for public disclosure"
22 October 2014	Reg Levy	A request for documents relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process generally, as well documents pertaining to the criteria, information reviewed, and other deliberative process related to the CPE for .eco	Declined	2, 3, 5, 6, & 9	Cites the prior DIDP regarding the .radio CPE in explaining its reasons for not disclosing information.
22 October 2014	dotgay LLC	A request for documents relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process generally, as well documents pertaining to the criteria, information reviewed, and other deliberative process related to the CPE for .gay	Declined	2, 3, 5, 6, & 9	Again, cites the DIDP request for the .radio CPE to partially explain its rationales
18 December 2014	Centre for Internet and Society	Detailed & categorized reports of expenses relating to travel and meetings for the years 1999-2014. Full request	Declined	12	Despite declining to produce additional documents, ICANN's response takes pains to identify public information that is responsive to the request
22 December 2014	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of ICANN's income from domain names between 1999-2014. Full request	Provided documentation from 2012 forward	12	ICANN adopted a new method of finacial reporting based on this DIDP request; however, earlier financial data was stored in a different system, and conversion of that data into a the new form of reporting would be overly burdensome (condition 12)
24 December 2014	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of cyber attacks suffered by ICANN since 1999	Declined	1, 2, 6, 8, 9, & 12
26 December 2014	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of the cases that have been decided by the ICANN Ombudsman, as well as information related to the lack of reporting on the Ombudsman's page, the absence of case reporting since 2010, and other operational details.	Declined	2, 8, 9, & 12	Staff provided links to public information, including the Ombudsman's annual report to the board.
27 December 2014	Centre for Internet and Society	Information pertaining to the implementation of the NETMundial Principles	Declined	1, 2, 6, 8, 9, & 12	ICANN staff provided some context on the NETMundial principles, and provided links to public information regarding ICANN's participation in the Internet governance ecosystem. However, the response went on to state instead that it was not responsible for implementing the NETMundial Principles, and that the request was outside of ICANN's operational mandate.
12 January 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Information pertaining to the formation and operation of ICANN's Globalization Advisory Groups	Provided answers regarding the dissolution of the groups	No	The IANA Functions Stewardship Transition spurred new community initiatives that were largely duplicative of the Globalization Advisory Groups. As a result, the groups were dissolved a month after they were created.
12 January 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Information relating to ICANN's auctions, including proceeds from auctions, complete bid histories (including losing bidders), and other operational information	All information already publicly available	No
13 January 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Requesting an organizational chart for ICANN's leadership and management, as well as staffing information, internal team composition, and other details	Responded that most of the requested information, if it existed, was already posted on the ICANN website.	No
13 January 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Expenses incurred and staffing resources allocated to the NETMundial conference, its resulting initiatives and its statement of principles; costs associated with travel, lodging, and other expenses specific to the conference; and ICANN staff hours committed to operations related to the NETMundial initiative	Declined	2, 3, 4, 6, 9, & 12	The response pointed to publicly available information, but declined to "create or compile" new reports or documents; also noted that NETMundial's website had posted or would soon post most of the information relevant to the CIS queries
20 January 2015	Guru Acharya	Documents related to the “Continuity and Contingency Plan" (plan for transfer to a successor contractor) described in Section C.7.3 of ICANN's IANA Functions Contract with NTIA.	After initially responding that it needed to consult with the parties to the contract to get consensus on making the plan publicly available, staff provided an update that the document was published in March	Initial response cited 1, 2, 3, & 9
6 February 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of contract fees paid by the RIRs from 1999-2014, including a breakdown of contributions from each.	Pointed to published financial information, no other documents released	No	The response noted that NRO only published breakdowns of contributions by RIR for three years from 2003-2005
11 February 2015	Kin Sun	Documents related to allegedly unauthorized transfer(s) of a domain name	Declined	3 & 5
12 March 2015	James Gannon	Disclosure of Root Zone KSK Operator Function Termination Plan specified in Section C.7.3 of the IANA Functions Contract between ICANN and the NTIA	After initially responding that it needed to consult with the parties to the contract to get consensus on making the plan publicly available, staff provided an update that the document was published in March	Initial response cited 1, 2, 3, 9, & 10	Essentially the same request as Guru Archarya, above
14 March 2015	James Gannon	Disclosure of Contingency and Continuity of Operations Plan as specified in Section C.7.2 in the IANA Functions contract between ICANN and the NTIA	Declined	1, 3, 6, 10, & 11	Response notes that disclosure of the plan "could pose a threat to the stability and security of the Internet and domain name system," because the plan includes details of response & recovery planning in the event of targeted disruption of the Internet.
7 April 2015	Paul Kane	Workflow process documents with statistics for each stage of the IANA Root Zone Management Function	After initially responding that staff would have to consult with all involved parties regarding publication of the information, staff later updated the record to note that the information had been published	Initial response cited 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, & 11
27 April 2015	James Bridle	Documents relating to the delegation and operation of .io, including correspondence between ICANN and the delegated authority	Provided context but did not produce documents	1, 2, 3, 9, & 10	.io is an Open Use ccTLD that was delegated by IANA in 1997, prior to the formation of ICANN, and using IANA's standard procedure for assigning operation of ccTLDs, as described in RFC 1591
5 June 2015	Flip Petillion	Information & documents regarding the data exposure issues in the new gTLD application and GDD portals that exposed the data of .hotel applicants and others.	Provided a narrative of the data exposure incident as related through ICANN's public announcements and updates on the issue; did not produce new documents	2, 5, 6, 8, & 9
17 July 2015	Edward Morris	ICANN's contract with Westlake Governance Limited to perform the Second GNSO Organizational Review, as well as communications between ICANN and Westlake during the conduct of that review. Full request	Provided portions of the contract language	2, 3, 6, 8, 9, & 11	Morris was displeased with the work of Westlake, and submitted a comment on Westlake's draft report, stating that the report should be "completely disregarded."<ref>GNSO2 Public Comment Listserv Archive - Personal Comment of Edward Morris, July 31, 2015
22 July 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Documents relating to ICANN's effort to implement the NETmundial Initiative	Declined	1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, & 12	Request is duplicative of CIS' earlier request for information about ICANN's implementation of NETMundial principles
22 July 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	"Raw data" for ICANN's revenue, budget, and financial information for 2009-2011	Declined	12	Again, request was a different flavor of a prior request for financial information, and was rejected on the same grounds
27 July 2015	Kevin Murphy	Unredacted documents, filings, and exhibits in the Independent Review Process DotConnectAfrica Trust v. ICANN	Pointed to public record, noted that recent updated documents were substantially less redacted, and agreed to consult with the parties to see if further redactions were possible (no result)	1, 2, 5, & 9
1 September 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Two separate requests regarding Contractual Compliance audits for registries and registrars - ICANN issued one response for both. Registry audit request. Registrar audit request.	Provided some additional documentation & information	2, 3, 5, & 6 (Registry audit DIDP); 3, 5, & 6 (Registrar audit DIDP)
1 September 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Documentary information regarding steps or enforcement actions taken by Contractual Compliance in response to its audits of registries, and specifically any communications between Contractual Compliance and Verisign. Full request.	Provided public information and context, but no additional documents	3, 5, & 6
1 September 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	Document related to the "process of regulating" registrars' obligations under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement to maintain a contact for abuse reporting, and investigate and respond to reports of such abuse. Specifically asked for "reports of illegal activity submitted to registrars" and "records relating to the actions taken by registrars that have been submitted to ICANN" during 2014 & 2015.	Declined	2, 3, & 5	The vast majority of records requested are in the custody of each registrar, not ICANN. Those in ICANN's possession are subject to the DCND
1 September 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	The names of those working in Contractual Compliance, a "copy of the document that calls for appointments to the post of the contractual compliance auditor," and the contract between ICANN and that auditor.	Posted RFP information for the call for a compliance auditor; compliance staff was already public; contract with KMPG (the selected audit partner) will not be disclosed	2, 3, 5, & 6
1 September 2015	Centre for Internet and Society	A document detailing the contents of ICANN's intranet	Declined	1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, & 12	In addition to the broad number of reasons why such a request was impossible to fulfill, no such document existed.
10 September 2015	Mark Seiden	Documents recording security incidents reported to ICANN during 2013, 2014, 2015 to date under section 3.20 (iii) of the Registry Accreditation Agreement	Declined	5 & 6	Response noted that Seiden's work on the SSAC was the reason for the request, and expressed hope that the SSAC's efforts to arrange anonymized reports re: security information would meet with success
10 September 2015	Asia Green IT System Ltd.	Documents related to the New gTLD Program Committee's decision to reject Asia Green's applications for .halal and .islam, based on GAC advice, community objections, and other context. Full request.	Provided a single letter written by Steve Crocker, which had inadvertently not been published on ICANN's correspondence page. Otherwise denied.	1, 2, 3, 8, & 9	Response pointed to copious amounts of publicly available information on the NGPC's deliberations, communications with the GAC and other objections, and other relevant documents.
18 September 2015	American Institute of Certified Public Accountants	Information related to the determination that the Institute did not prevail in its Community Priority Evaluation for .cpa. Full request.	Provided the email that approved the initiation of the CPE, but otherwise declined to produce documents	2, 3, 5, 6, & 9
18 September 2015	CPA Australia	Information related to the determination that CPA Australia did not prevail in its Community Priority Evaluation for .cpa. Full request.	Provided an email approving initiation of CPE process, otherwised declined to produce documents	2, 3, 6, & 9	Very similar request as the Am. Inst. of CPAs
21 September 2015	Don Moody, on behalf of Donuts, Inc. and its subsidiary Foggy Sunset, LLC	Information related to the determination approving Asia Spa & Wellness Promotion Council's Community Priority Evaluation for .spa. Full request.	Provided the email that initiated the CPE process, as well as the one public comment on the Community Evaluation forum that was received in relation to the .spa CPE; otherwise declined to produce documents	2, 3, 5, 6, & 9	Response noted that the DIDP request identified most of the publicly available information regarding the CPE.
22 October 2015	Bart Lieben on behalf of dotgay LLC	Information regarding the determination that dotgay LLC did not prevail in its second Community Priority Evaluation for .gay. Full request.	Provided email exchanges between ICANN staff and the third party CPE evaluator regarding the completeness of the record at the initiation of the second CPE; otherwise declined to produce documents	2, 3, 8, 9, & 12

At-Large Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN related to the interests of individual Internet users (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.

Business Constituency

Top-Level Domain

Internationalized Domain Name

Governmental Advisory Committee. Considers and provides advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, particularly matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements or where they may affect public policy issues (ICANN Bylaws).

Internet Assigned Numbers Authority

Security and Stability Advisory Committee. Advises the ICANN community and Board on matters relating to the security and integrity of the Internet's naming and address allocation systems (ICANN Bylaws).

Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group. Represents the full range of non-commercial entities of the Internet (ICANN Bylaws). Not to be confused with the At-Large Advisory Committee.

Independent Review Process

Country code top-level domain

Number Resource Organization