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''.  

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>

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.  

* ''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.  

* ''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: 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===

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]].

 

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

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

| 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]]

| [[Barry Carter]]

| [[Iliya Bazlyankov]]

| [[Jorge Sabate]]

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

| [[Denise Subramaniam]]

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

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

| [[Diane Duke]]

| [[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

| [[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]]

| [[Paul McGrady]]

| [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

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

| [[George Kirikos]]

| [[Garth Bruen]]

| Nine separate requests for documents regarding Bruen's [[Contractual Compliance]] [[WHOIS Data Problem Reporting Service]] tickets submitted in 2011, including correspondence between the [[registrar]]s reported and ICANN, as well as ICANN internally

| [[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]]

| [[George Kirikos]]

| 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]

| [[George Kirikos]]

| [[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]].

| 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

| 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

| 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].

| [[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

| 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]]

| Requesting details of ICANN's internal sexual harassment policies and training

| [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].

| 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."

| 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."

| 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