Documentary Information Disclosure Policy: Difference between revisions

ICANN's '''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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en DIDP, ICANN Resources]</ref>

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 responds to each request within 30 calendar days, even if only to inform the requester 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 provides 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 [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en website].

These steps are strictly interpreted, and the process contains a number of intrinsic rationales for the rejection of portions or all of a DIDP request. These threshold considerations can result in partial or full rejection of a given 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''.  

* ''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."<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-report-2021-en.pdf ICANN Annual Report 2021], page 82</ref> The transparency and ease of access of "publicly available" information has been a topic of several specific and organizational [[ICANN Reviews|reviews]], as well as the [[Cross Community Working Group on Accountability]]. 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.  

Although in theory, the balancing test applies to all Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure, it is most frequently cited in the 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.<ref>See Summary Tables for examples.</ref>

 

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

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"

|-

|-

| Various [[Internet governance]] and ICANN policy issues; ICANN financial and operational details

|-

| 10

| ICANN board deliberations and resolutions; ICANN [[PDP|policy-making]] topics

| Requests on behalf of clients regarding the [[New gTLD Program]]

| Board deliberations on various issues; staff responses to DIDP requests

| [[George Kirikos]]

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

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/>

[[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/>

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

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

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>

To the extent a requestor chooses to seek review of a response to a request pursuant to the DIDP, a requestor may seek any of the accountability mechanisms afforded under the Bylaws to the extent applicable, such as the Reconsideration Request process in accordance with Bylaws, Article 4, Section 4.2, or the Independent Review Process in accordance with Bylaws, Article 4, Section 4.3, or Ombudsman process if a requestor believes that the response was unfair in accordance with Bylaws, Article 5.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/board-activities-and-meetings/materials/approved-resolutions-regular-meeting-of-the-icann-board-21-01-2023-en#section2.c Approved Resolutions, Board Meeting January 21, 2023 Section 2.c Rationale, Board Activities, ICANN]</ref>‎</blockquote>

* 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  

*# "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" />

** [[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>

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

| [[Victoria McEvedy]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20090925-1/barrientos-response-25sep09-en.pdf Provided a link to the RFC]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100624-1/palage-response-22jul10-en.pdf Declined] because ICANN could not divulge details of a confidential agreement. ICANN subsequently requested whether NSW would allow disclosure; that request was [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100624-1/palage-response-update-19oct10-en.pdf denied].

| [[Barry Carter]]

| [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/20100908-1/duke-response-07oct10-en.pdf Declined] to produce documents.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20100927-1/leibovitch-response-27oct10-en.pdf No documents produced].

| [[Iliya Bazlyankov]]

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

| [[Jorge Sabate]]

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

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

| [[Denise Subramaniam]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110310-1/palage-response-09apr11-en.pdf Linked to public information], declined to produce documents on threshold and DCND grounds.

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

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

| 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 contained.

| [[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)

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

| [[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

| [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

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

| [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

| [[John Bell]], The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition

| [[James Keener]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110820-1/mccarthy-response-19sep11-en.pdf Pointed to Board Meetings page on ICANN.org]; no new documents produced

| [[Paul McGrady]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110902-1/mcgrady-response-02oct11-en.pdf Declined] to produce non-public documents; pointed to public records

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110919-1/mccarthy-response-20sep11-en.pdf Provided context] but declined to produce documents initially;<br /> [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110920-1/mccarthy-response-20oct11-en.pdf second response] declining to produce internal documents or correspondence;<br /> [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20111020-1/mccarthy-response-19nov11-en.pdf third response] declining to produce documents specific to the deliberations and process of responding to prior DIDP requests.

| 2, 3, 6, 8, & 9

| This "conversation" via DIDP is noteworthy for providing some insight into ICANN's interpretation of the DIDP and its implementation practices.

| [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20111027-2-2014-02-18-en Plan was detailed in an ATRT report]; did not disclose additional documents

| [[George Todoroff]]

| [[George Kirikos]]

| [[John Bell]], The [[.jobs]] Charter Compliance Coalition

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120403-1/bell-response-03may12-en.pdf Provided context and the link to publicly available information about the arbitration]; declined to produce other documents

| [[Phil Corwin]], [[Internet Commerce Association]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120808-1/maher-response-07sep12-en.pdf Provided context information & links to published information], but declined to produce new documents

| [[George Kirikos]]

| [[Garth Bruen]]

| [[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

| [[Oksana Prykhodko]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130326-1/prykhodko-response-24apr13-en.pdf Pointed to public information], otherwise declined

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130328-1/petillion-response-27apr13-en.pdf Pointed to public information & provided some context]; [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130328-1/petillion-response-25jul13-en.pdf provided additional context] in response to the subsequent request. Declined to produce documents.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130413-1/murphy-response-13may13-en.pdf Brussels was not recorded, LA was], recordings & transcripts would be posted shortly. No non-public documentation provided.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130422-1/indelicarto-response-19jun13-en.pdf Pointed to the New gTLD Program's correspondence page], and declined to produce any other documents

| [[George Kirikos]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130626-1/kirikos-response-26jul13-en.pdf Pointed to public records], otherwise declined

| Exchanges between ICANN and [[Registrar]]s who had invoked ICANN's procedure for dealing with [[WHOIS]] conflicts with privacy laws; copies of the 2013 [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]]s; 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.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130810-1/frison-response-09sep13-en.pdf 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

| 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

| Correspondence, deliberations, and other documents related to ICOMP's [[Community Objection]] to [[Google]]'s application for [[.search]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20140320-2/request-icomp-20mar14-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20140320-2/response-icomp-19apr14-en.pdf Declined] - all information that was not already public was subject to a condition of nondisclosure

| [[George Kirikos]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/response-amazon-22jun14-en.pdf Pointed] to public record, declined to produce other documents on threshold & DCND grounds

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20140804-01/response-donuts-et-al-03sep14-en.pdf Pointed to public information], declined to produce non-public documents

| The request made efforts to preempt 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."

| [[Dot Registry LLC]]

| [[fTLD Registry Servies LLC]]

| 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 [[CPE]] shall remain confidential

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/palage-request-30sep14-en.pdf request] for accounting and financial information regarding applications for [[Internationalized Domain Name|internationalized]] [[ccTLD]] strings, as well as information regarding ICANN's [[transparency|reporting processes]], details of non-payment, and ICANN's treatment of non-payment.

| ICANN noted that the differences in reporting of IDN application revenue were "a matter of formatting and not the result of an affirmative documented decision."

| Letter from [[Rod Beckstrom]] to [[Maria Del Rosario Guerra]] dated December 1, 2009, the response to which was listed on ICANN's correspondence page.

| "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"

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/levy-request-22oct14-en.pdf request] for documents relating to the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] Process generally, as well documents pertaining to the criteria, information reviewed, and other deliberative processes related to the [[CPE]] for [[.eco]]

| [[dotgay LLC]]

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lieben-request-22oct14-en.pdf request] for documents relating to the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] Process generally, as well documents pertaining to the criteria, information reviewed, and other deliberative processes related to the CPE for [[.gay]]

| [[Centre for Internet and Society]]

| ICANN adopted a new method of financial reporting based on this DIDP request; however, earlier financial data was stored in a different system, and conversion of that data into a new form of reporting would be overly burdensome  

| Details of [[DNS Abuse|cyberattacks]] suffered by ICANN since 1999

| 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.

| ICANN staff provided some context on the NETMundial principles and links to public information regarding ICANN's participation in the [[Internet Governance]] ecosystem. However, the response went on to state that it was not responsible for implementing the NETMundial Principles and that the request was outside of ICANN's operational mandate.

| Information pertaining to the formation and operation of ICANN's [[Board Committees|Globalization Advisory Groups]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-globalization-advisory-response-11feb15-en.pdf Provided answers] regarding the dissolution of the groups; no documents were provided

| Requesting an organizational chart for [[ICANN Officers|ICANN's leadership and management]], as well as [[:Category:ICANN Staff|staffing]] information, internal team composition, and other details

| [[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]].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-08mar15-en.pdf Pointed to published financial information], declined on threshold grounds (no such docs in ICANN's possession)

| The response noted that [[NRO]] only published breakdowns of contributions by RIR for three years from 2003-2005

| [[Kin Sun]]

| Documents related to allegedly unauthorized [[Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy|transfer(s)]] of a domain name

| After [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150407-1-kane-07may15-en.pdf initially responding] that staff would have to consult with all involved parties regarding the publication of the information, staff later [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150407-1-2015-05-08-en updated the record] to note that the information had been published

| [[James Bridle]]

| Documents relating to the delegation and operation of [[.io]], including correspondence between ICANN and the [[Delegation|delegated]] authority

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150427-1-bridle-27may15-en.pdf Provided context] but declined to produce documents on threshold and DCND grounds

| Information & documents regarding the data exposure issues in the new gTLD application and [[GDD]] portals that exposed the data of [[.hotel]] applicants and others.

| [[Edward Morris]]

| 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>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html GNSO2 Public Comment Listserv Archive - Personal Comment of Edward Morris], July 31, 2015

| Request was duplicative of CIS' earlier request for information about ICANN's implementation of NETMundial principles

| Again, the request was a different flavor of a prior request for financial information and was rejected on the same grounds

| Unredacted documents, filings, and exhibits in the [[Independent Review Process]] [[DotConnectAfrica]] Trust v. ICANN

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-corrected-20150727-1-murphy-27aug15-en.pdf Pointed to public record], noted that recently updated documents were substantially less redacted, and agreed to consult with the parties to see if further redactions were possible (no result). Did not produce new documents.

| 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]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150901-3-01sep15-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-3-cis-contractual-violations-verisign-01oct15-en.pdf Provided public information and context], but declined to produce additional documents

| The vast majority of records requested were in the custody of each registrar, not ICANN. Those in ICANN's possession were subject to the DCND

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-5-cis-auditor-appt-01oct15-en.pdf Posted public 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

| [[Mark Seiden]]

| 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

| Documents related to the [[Board Committees|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. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150910-1-asia-green-it-system-ltd-10sep15-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-attachment-20150910-1-asia-green-it-system-ltd-10oct15-en.pdf Provided a single letter] written by [[Steve Crocker]], which had inadvertently not been published on ICANN's correspondence page. Otherwise denied.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-supporting-20150918-2-18oct15-en.pdf Provided the email] that approved the initiation of the [[CPE]], but otherwise declined to produce documents

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-supporting-20150918-1-18oct15-en.pdf Provided an email] approving initiation of CPE process, otherwise declined to produce documents

| [[Jeffrey Smith]] on behalf of Commercial Connect, LLC

| The response noted that the DIDP request was very broad; however, as there were no documents in ICANN's possession responsive to the request, DCND 12 was not "officially" cited  

| 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 [[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].

| [[RrSG|Registrar Stakeholder Group]] Executive Committee

| Reports submitted by the [[Board Governance Committee]] to the full board, as required by the [[ICANN Bylaws]]

| Requesting "diversity analysis" documents of [[Public Comment]]s, 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-20160423-5-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf Reported] that ICANN was conducting a statistical analysis of the DIDP program and would post results on its website. Otherwise declined.

| "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."

| [[DotMusic]] Limited

| "Any documents in ICANN's possession" on the topics of "[[DNS Abuse|malware, spam, bots, cybersquatting]], [[Cybercrime|malicious/illegal activity]], etc., in connection with the [[DNS|domain name system]]...over the past three years"

| [[Dot Registry LLC]]

| Request for [[ICANN Board]] meeting attendance, minutes, and preparatory materials for the meetings in August and September 2016; and other documents related to the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] review [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160922-1-shaul-jolles-obo-dot-registry-llc-request-22sep16-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160922-1-shaul-jolles-obo-dot-registry-llc-response-21oct16-en.pdf Responded] that all documentation regarding the meetings, as well as the CPE Review, were publicly available. Declined to produce additional documents.

| The response noted that "the Requester was a member of the ICANN Board at the time of the 8 February 2005 Board Meeting" and pointed to an extensive public record of the settlement: "Subsequent to the 8 February 2005 Board meeting, a vast amount of information, communications, and documents have been publicly posted on ICANN's website regarding the litigation between Verisign and ICANN, including the proposed and revised settlement agreement, the public comments on the settlement agreement and proposed [[.com]] Registry Agreement, ICANN press releases, as well as correspondence."

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20161024-1-cis-response-23nov16-en.pdf Pointed to public records] of ICANN's lobbying activities; declined to produce other documents.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20161024-2-cis-response-23nov16-en.pdf Answered questions] but did not produce documents

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20161024-6-cis-response-23nov16-en.pdf Pointed] to external resources, declined to produce new documents

| Correspondence between the [[Namibian Network Information Centre]] (NNIC) and ICANN; agreements between those entities that "give administrative control" of [[.na]] to NNIC; and "outputs and presentations to the board" by the [[ccNSO]] Technology working group during the tenure of Dr. [[Eberhard Lisse]] as chair of that group. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20161024-7-cis-request-24oct16-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20161024-7-cis-response-23nov16-en.pdf Declined to respond] to the first item beyond already-published correspondence. ICANN was not in existence when .na was delegated and was not in possession of anything responsive to the second item. There were also no documents responsive to the third item (presentations of the ccNSO technology working group)

|  

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20161024-8-cis-response-23nov16-en.pdf Acknowledged and corrected] the FY 2003 discrepancy; no documents existed re: the first item

| [[Ben Sobel]]

| "Documents, initiatives and research dealing with the blockchain and distributed ledger technology (DLT) in connection with the DNS and other unique identifiers schemes/frameworks"

| [[Arif Ali]] on behalf of [[DotMusic]] Limited

| [[Avri Doria]]

| SSAC 045 finds in part: "ICANN should make applicants for new TLDs aware of the following: Any new TLD registry operator may experience unanticipated queries and some TLDs may experience a non-trivial load of unanticipated queries if the label it chooses corresponds to TLDs that have historically seen queries. Studies illustrate that the amount of inherited query traffic could be considerable, i.e., on the order of millions of queries per day, should the applicant’s chosen string be one that appears frequently at the root. While millions of queries per day is manageable from an operational perspective, it is prudent for ICANN to make applicants aware of the potential for inherited traffic so they are prepared to manage the volume, and will thus minimize the possibility of operational difficulties that would pose a stability or availability problem for their registrants and users.

| Response noted the similarity of Ali's two requests for similar information on behalf of two separate clients and made reference to the earlier response re: DotMusic Limited

| [[Shaul Jolles]] on behalf of Dot Registry, LLC

| "With the exception of the correspondence between ICANN organization and the CPE provider regarding the evaluations, all materials provided to the evaluator are publicly available. Regarding the correspondence between ICANN organization and the CPE provider regarding the evaluations, including any document and draft CPE reports that were exchanged concerning the evaluation of Dot Registry’s applications for [[.inc]], [[.llp]], and [[.llc]], these documents were provided to Dot Registry in the [[IRP]] pursuant to the Panel’s order regarding document production."

| 10 June 2017

| Documents relating to the selection of and process employed by the third-party reviewer of the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process (items 1 and 3); list of ICANN staff, board members, agents, etc. that were interviewed as part of the CPE process review (item 2); and confirmation that "ICANN will disclose FTI's final report to the CPE applicants...immediately after FTI completes its review." (item 4) [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170610-1-ali-obo-dotgay-et-al-request-redacted-10jun17-en.pdf Full request].

| [[Vidushi Marda]] on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society

| Requesting "detailed reports with historical data on income and revenue contributions from domain names, for FY15 and FY16, in the manner in which FY13 and FY14 were published;" and requesting a status update regarding a similar planned report for FY 2012

| [[Flip Petillion]] on behalf of Travel Reservations SRL, Spring McCook, LLC, [[Minds + Machines Group Limited]], [[Famous Four Media Limited]], dot Hotel Limited, [[Radix]] FZC, dot Hotel Inc., and [[Fegistry, LLC]]

| Documents related to the selection of FTI as the third-party reviewer for the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review, and information pertaining to FTI's process, documents submitted to FTI, and any other details.

| [[Karl Kronenberger]]

| [[Arif Ali]] on behalf of DotMusic Limited

| [[Arif Ali]] on behalf of dotgay LLC

| [[Michael Karanicolas]]

| [[Jonathan Matkowsky]] on behalf of [[RiskIQ]], Inc.

| [[Akriti Bopanna]] on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180326-1-bopanna-response-25apr18-en.pdf Initially responded] that the information would be posted once complete. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180326-1-bopanna-response-01jun18-en.pdf Followed up] with a copy of the report and a link to the report on ICANN's website

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180423-1-ali-response-23may18-en.pdf Declined again] - the "confidentiality agreement" because it defeated the point of DIDP requests and the "amended" requests for DCND reasons similar to ICANN's response to the February request.

| "As explained in ICANN organization’s 27 April 2018 response email to you, the concept of a confidentiality agreement for the disclosure of documents through the DIDP runs afoul of the DIDP itself, which is to make public documents concerning ICANN organization’s operations unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality...The DIDP is not a mechanism for one to make information requests or requests to obtain litigation-style discovery. <br />As further indicated in ICANN’s 27 April 2018 response email, ICANN’s DIDP Response 20180223-1 indicated that Item Nos. 5 and 6(a)-(b) were overbroad and vague and that Requestor could further clarify or narrow the scope of those Items if it wished to do so. Afilias’ 23 April 2018 letter, however, goes far beyond those parameters and, in many instances, broadens and/or fundamentally changes the requests contained in DIDP Request 20180223-1. As such, and as indicated in ICANN’s 27 April 2018 email, ICANN organization will treat these “amended” requests as a new DIDP Request, with an effective submission date of 23 April 2018, and ICANN organization will respond through and in accordance with the DIDP Process."

| [[Paul Kurian]] on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society

| Kirikos filed an appeal under [[GNSO]] Working Group Guidelines relating to the [[International Governmental Organization-International Non-Governmental Organization Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms PDP Working Group|IGO/INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP]] [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180610-1-kirikos-request-redacted-10jun18-en.pdf His DIDP request] sought recordings or transcripts of conversations specific to that appeal.

| [[Akash Sriram]] on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society

| [[Akriti Bopanna]] on behalf of the Centre for Internet & Society

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20181221-1-ali-response-20jan19-en.pdf Declined] to produce Verisign communications for the same reasons as prior requests; pointed to public listserv archives regarding ITP-IOT communications; and pointed to board briefing materials re: the adoption of the interim supplemental procedures. [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-20181221-1-ali-request-2019-01-24-en Subsequent updates] alerted Afilias to additions to "off-list" communication between IOT members

| [[William Donovan]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20190325-1-bopanna-response-24apr19-en.pdf Pointed to public information] - no new documents were presented

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20190401-1-ali-response-01may19-en.pdf Responded] that some items were asked and answered in the response to the December 2018 DIDP request; in other cases, documents did not exist or were subject to DCND

| [[Ivan Castaño]] on behalf of the Government of Colombia

| The request was in relation to [[Amazon]]'s application for .amazon, and gaining an understanding of [[Public Interest Commitment]]s and other aspects of the [[Registry Agreement]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20191003-1-palage-response-02nov19-en.pdf Response] noted that Palage's questions were related to public benefit corporations (as opposed to nonprofit public benefit corporations) and that ICANN was not required to comply with the laws referenced in Palage's request. As such, the documents that are required by the statute were not created and did not exist. Pointed to public information regarding other requests.

| [[Amy Ward]], [[Mitch Stoltz]], and [[Jacob Malthouse]]

| [[Ephraim Percy Kenyanito]] on behalf of [[ARTICLE19]]

| [[John Baird]]

| [[Edgar Lavarello]] and [[Mike Rodenbaugh]] on behalf of Dot Hotel Limited and Domain Ventures Partners PCC Limited