Documentary Information Disclosure Policy: Difference between revisions

Line 100:

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.

'''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.

:[[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.<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>

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

'''Issues with Review/Challenge Mechanisms'''

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

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

==Criticism==

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 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/>
+:[[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/>
+:[[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>
+:The ALAC, A19, BC, Leap of Faith, and RySG supported expanding the role of the Ombudsman to include providing the mechanism for requestors seeking review of DIDP responses. The ALAC recommended that the DIDP and responses refer requestors to review mechanisms for challenging DIDP responses. The BC suggested a 30-day window within which a requester can seek a review of a denial of disclosure. The BC suggested that requestors submit a request for review and the reason for denial of disclosure, which the Ombudsman should assess within 30 days of receipt. The BC said the Ombuds’ review should be published as advisory to the ICANN org, with 14 days to respond. The RySG stated that the Ombuds would likely have to recuse themselves from any [[Reconsideration]] request challenging a DIDP response they had reviewed and the [[Complaints Office]] may be better suited for this role.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/summary-report-revisions-didp-28-01-2022-en.pdf Proposed Changes to DIDP Public Comment Summary Report, Jan 2022, ICANN Files]</ref>
 ==Criticism==