Changes

Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (view source)

Revision as of 18:43, 7 February 2022

3,931 bytes added , 2 years ago

Line 1: Line 1: −

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.

+

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>

==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 [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/transparency-en website].

+

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].

==DIDP Process==

Line 13: Line 13:

# The ICANN staffer prepares an email response to the DIDP Request and posts the request and response and Request to the DIDP page.<ref name="processdoc">[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-process-29oct13-en.pdf DIDP Response Process, ICANN Resources]</ref>

−

These steps are strictly interpreted, and the process contains a number of intrinsic rationales for 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''.

+

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''.

* ''Documents'' are defined as existing, written records. Documents that do not exist cannot be produced<ref>See, e.g., [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20111207-1/gunnarson-response-06jan12-en.pdf DIDP 20111207-1], requesting documents that did not (yet) exist</ref> 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.<ref>See, e.g., [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf DIDP 20141222-1], responding that creation of financial reports responsive to the request would be "burdensome" and also not ICANN's responsibility under the policy; and [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120315-1/kirikos-response-13apr12-en.pdf DIDP 21020315-1], requesting "all correspondence" that had not been posted on ICANN's correspondence page (no obligation to compile)</ref>

* ''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.<ref> See, e.g., [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110411-1/duke-response-11may11-en.pdf DIDP 20110411-1] from the Free Speech Coalition, inquiring about the board composition & officers of another outside entity</ref> 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.<ref>See, e.g., [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-netmundial-response-27jan15-en.pdf DIDP 20141228-1-NETmundial]: "Although ICANN is one of the founding members of the Initiative, the NETmundial Initiative is not a part of ICANN...Information on the

Line 41: Line 41:

<blockquote>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.<ref name="processdoc" /></blockquote>

−

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.<ref>See Summary Tables for examples.</ref>

+

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>

==History==

−

From 2007 to 2008, ICANN developed the original DIDP following its community consultation on the Accountability and Transparency Frameworks and Principles.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/new-organisational-frameworks-and-principles-17-10-2007 New Organizational Frameworks and Principles, Public Comment, ICANN]</ref> 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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/younger-response-24oct08-en.pdf Younger Request and Response, October 2008, DIDP Archive, ICANN]</ref>

+

===Birth and Growth of the DIDP===

+

From 2007 to 2008, ICANN developed the original DIDP following its community consultation on the Accountability and Transparency Frameworks and Principles.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/proceeding/new-organisational-frameworks-and-principles-17-10-2007 New Organizational Frameworks and Principles, Public Comment, ICANN]</ref> 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.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/younger-response-24oct08-en.pdf Younger Request and Response, October 2008, DIDP Archive, ICANN]</ref> In 2012, ICANN updated the policy following another community consultation, and it has remained the same since.

+

===Outcomes Thus Far===

+

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

+

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

+

* ''Declined: the response included rationales for rejection of all or part of a request for additional documents'' 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'' 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'' 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]].

+

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"

+

|-

+

! Requester

+

! Number of Requests

+

! Topic(s)

+

|-

+

| Centre for Internet & Society

+

| 43

+

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

+

|-

+

| [[Michael Palage]]

+

| 10

+

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

+

|-

+

| Arif Ali

+

| 9

+

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

+

|-

+

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

+

| 6

+

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

+

|-

+

| [[George Kirikos]]

+

| 5

+

| Largely addressing failures to keep specific website resources up to date

+

|-

+

| [[Kevin Murphy]]

+

| 4

+

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

+

|}

−

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

===2021 Proposed Changes===

In 2021, ICANN Org proposed the following changes.

Line 57: Line 99:

# Add periodic review: "ICANN will review the DIDP Policy and the DIDP Response Process every five years."<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/documentary-information-disclosure-policy-didp/proposed-update-to-the-didp-redline-en.pdf Proposed DIDP Update (Redline), Public Comment Documents for Review]</ref>

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

−

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.

+

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

−

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

+

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.

−

[[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 Conditions of Nondisclosure'''

−

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

+

[[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.

−

[[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 the Process'''

−

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

+

[[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>

−

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.<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>

==Criticism==

Line 73: Line 116:

::*# Revise the new language on conditions for nondisclosure.<ref>[https://itp.cdn.icann.org/forms/publiccomment/submission/AL-ALAC-ST-1221-01-00-EN.pdf ALAC Submission on Proposed DIDP Changes, Public Comment, ICANN]</ref>

::* [[Kevin Murphy]] summarized various community members' and collectives' critiques as accusing ICANN of "shirk its transparency obligations" by granting greater ability to deny requests without any explanation.<ref>[https://domainincite.com/27342-icann-trying-to-water-down-its-transparency-obligations ICANN trying to water down its transparency obligations, DomainIncite]</ref>

−

* Dr. [[Sarah Clayton]] argues that the 12 defined conditions of non-disclosure (DCND) "essentially provide an administrative loophole for ICANN to restrict the free flow of information."<ref>[~~http~~://~~sunbelt2016~~.~~insna~~.~~org~~/~~wp-content/uploads/2016~~/04/~~2016-Sunbelt-Program_040516_FINAL_wchange-for-online~~.pdf International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 2016]</ref> Furthermore, her statistical p* models demonstrate that

+

* Dr. [[Sarah Clayton]] argues that the 12 defined conditions of non-disclosure (DCND) "essentially provide an administrative loophole for ICANN to restrict the free flow of information."<ref name="sunbelt">[https://www.dropbox.com/s/o7jd31k0z40fdoc/36_Abstracts.pdf?dl=0 International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 2016 - Abstracts Archive]</ref> Furthermore, her statistical p* models demonstrate that

*# [[ICANN Organization]] considers lengthier submissions to be more likely to request contentious information and are more likely to apply DCND to them

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

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

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

−

*# "Confidential External Business Information" conditions are less likely to be imposed on internet [[:Category:Non-Profit|non-profits]], as they are more interested in ICANN’s interface with [[Internet Governance]] than third-party business interests.<ref~~>[http://sunbelt2016.insna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016-Sunbelt-Program_040516_FINAL_wchange-for-online.pdf International Sunbelt Social Network Conference 2016]<~~/~~ref~~>

+

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

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

−

** [[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>

+

** [[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:

−

** Baruah presented on this topic at an [[NCUC]] session during [[ICANN 55]], and [[George Sadowsky]] was invited to comment on her findings. He noted that there were some discrepancies between Baruah's assessments of the history of the DIDP mechanism and ICANN staff's assessment of the same history.<ref>[https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/tue-ncuc/transcript-ncuc-08mar16-en ICANN 55 Archive - Transcript, Non Commercial Users Constituency Meeting], March 8, 2016 (starting at page 59) (PDF)</ref> Baruah subsequently submitted a DIDP request in an attempt to reconcile her analysis with that of ICANN staff. ICANN responded in part:

+

:<blockquote> In several instances, your characterizations of “no” or “partly” disclosed are either mistaken, do not acknowledge the information and documents identified as publicly posted, do not take into consideration the nature of the requests and the existence (or lack thereof) of responsive documents, and/or do not consider the balancing required between the public benefit and the potential harm of requested disclosures.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf ICANN Staff response to DIDP Request 20161024-4], May 21, 2016 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

−

<blockquote> In several instances, your characterizations of “no” or “partly” disclosed are either mistaken, do not acknowledge the information and documents identified as publicly posted, do not take into consideration the nature of the requests and the existence (or lack thereof) of responsive documents, and/or do not consider the balancing required between the public benefit and the potential harm of requested disclosures.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf ICANN Staff response to DIDP Request 20161024-4], May 21, 2016 (PDF)</ref></blockquote>

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

Line 110: Line 152:

|-

| 6 February 2009

−

| Christopher Cielinski, Commercial Contract Inc.

+

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

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

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

Line 138: Line 180:

|-

| 17 September 2009

−

| Victoria McEvedy

+

| [[Victoria McEvedy]]

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

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

Line 173: Line 215:

|-

| 20 August 2010

−

| Barry Carter

+

| [[Barry Carter]]

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

| [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.

Line 194: Line 236:

|-

| 1 December 2010

−

| Iliya Bazlyankov

+

| [[Iliya Bazlyankov]]

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

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

Line 201: Line 243:

|-

| 7 December 2010

−

| Jorge Sabate

+

| [[Jorge Sabate]]

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

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

| 12

−

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

+

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

|-

| 4 November 2010

−

| Denise Subramaniam

+

| [[Denise Subramaniam]]

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

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

Line 222: Line 264:

|-

| 16 March 2011

−

| Kieren McCarthy

+

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

−

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

+

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

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

| No

Line 229: Line 271:

|-

| 11 April 2011

−

| Diane Duke

+

| [[Diane Duke]]

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

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

Line 236: Line 278:

|-

| 23 May 2011

−

| Kevin Murphy

+

| [[Kevin Murphy]]

−

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

+

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

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

| No

Line 243: Line 285:

|-

| 13 June 2011

−

| Kieren McCarthy

+

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

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

−

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

+

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

| No

|

|-

| 8 July 2011

−

| John Bell, The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition

+

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

| Information related to the change of the [[.jobs]] "Purpose" field in the IANA Root Zone Database.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bell-response-05aug11-en.pdf Provided partial information], including a redacted copy of the [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/bell-supporting-docs-31may11-en.pdf TLD change request] submitted to IANA

Line 257: Line 299:

|-

| 10 August 2011

−

| James Keener

+

| [[James Keener]]

| Copy of the [[Registrar Accreditation Agreement]] between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphins Inc. as well as names on the application

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20110810-1/keener-response-09sep11-en.pdf Information provided] - [https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/raa/raa-dynamic-dolphin-13jun05-en.pdf 2005 RAA] and [https://archive.icann.org/en/topics/raa/raa-dynamic-dolphin-18mar10-en.pdf 2010 RAA]

Line 271: Line 313:

|-

| 2 September 2011

−

| Paul McGrady

+

| [[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."

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

Line 301: Line 343:

| [[Kieren McCarthy]]

| Requesting a copy of the [[First Accountability and Transparency Review|ATRT1]] implementation plan

−

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

+

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

| No

|

Line 320: Line 362:

|-

| 17 January 2012

−

| George Todoroff

+

| [[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.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120117-1/todoroff-response-16feb12-en.pdf Declined]

Line 327: Line 369:

|-

| 15 March 2012

−

| George Kirikos

+

| [[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"

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120315-1/kirikos-response-13apr12-en.pdf Declined]

Line 334: Line 376:

|-

| 3 April 2012

−

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

+

| [[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. [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120403-1/bell-request-03apr12-en.pdf Full request]

| [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

Line 341: Line 383:

|-

| 29 May 2012

−

| Phil Corwin, [[Internet Commerce Association]]

+

| [[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. [[https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120529-1/corwin-request-29may12-en.pdf Full request]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120529-1/corwin-response-28jun12-en.pdf Provided some history] regarding the "URS Summit" line item, and the [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20120529-1/corwin-supporting-docs-28jun12-en.pdf email chain] that led to its removal from the draft budget

Line 355: Line 397:

|-

| 27 September 2012

−

| George Kirikos

+

| [[George Kirikos]]

| Updates to, and general improvement of, ICANN's litigation information and [[Independent Review Process]] pages. [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20121027-1/kirikos-request-27oct12-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20121027-1/kirikos-response-27nov12-en.pdf Thanked Kirikos] for the suggestions, and noted that most of the specific pages he referenced had been updated.

Line 369: Line 411:

|-

| 5 February 2013

−

| Garth Bruen

+

| [[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 ~~registrars~~ reported and ICANN, as well as ICANN internally

+

| 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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130205-1-to-9/bruen-response-07mar13-en.pdf Declined] on DCND grounds

| 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9

Line 376: Line 418:

|-

| 5 February 2013

−

| Mary Blasy

+

| [[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

+

| 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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130211-1/blasy-response-13mar13-en.pdf Pointed to publicly available information]; declined to produce more

| 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, & 9

Line 390: Line 432:

|-

| 26 March 2013

−

| Oksana Prykhodko

+

| [[Oksana Prykhodko]]

| Information re: delegation of the [[IDN]] [[ccTLD]] [[.ykp]] to Ukraine [https://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/20130326-1/prykhodko-request-26mar13-en.pdf Full request]

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

Line 425: Line 467:

|-

| 26 June 2013

−

| George Kirikos

+

| [[George Kirikos]]

| Documents, recordings, and transcripts of meetings, presentations, and other work of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services

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

Line 440: Line 482:

| 10 August 2013

| [[Mathilde Frison]]

−

| 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 ~~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.

+

| 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

+

| [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

| 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

+

| 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

Line 454: Line 496:

| 20 March 2014

| [[ICOMP]]

−

| 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]

+

| 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

| 2, 5, 6, 9, & 11

Line 460: Line 502:

|-

| 15 May 2014

−

| George Kirikos

+

| [[George Kirikos]]

| ICANN’s unredacted Form 990 for the period ending 30 June 2013

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/response-kirikos-14jun14-en.pdf Responded] that the form was publicly posted once filed with the IRS

Line 481: Line 523:

|-

| 4 September 2014

−

| Dot Registry LLC

+

| [[Dot Registry LLC]]

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-craven-weil-gotshal-manges-04sep14-en.pdf request] for a copy of the contract between [[Community Priority Evaluation]] provider Economist Intelligent Unit (EIU) and ICANN.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/response-craven-weil-gotshal-manges-03oct14-en.pdf Declined]

Line 488: Line 530:

|-

| 17 September 2014

−

| fTLD Registry Servies LLC

+

| [[fTLD Registry Servies LLC]]

| A [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/request-craven-weil-gotshal-manges-17sep14-en.pdf 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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/response-craven-weil-gotshal-manges-16oct14-en.pdf 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

+

| 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

|-

| 26 September 2014

Line 503: Line 545:

| 30 September 2014

| [[Michael Palage]]

−

| 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 reporting processes, details of non-payment, and ICANN's treatment of non-payment.

+

| 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.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/palage-response-30oct14-en.pdf 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."

+

| 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."

|-

| 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.

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/murphy-response-20nov14-en.pdf 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"

+

| "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 [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 ~~process~~ related to the CPE for [[.eco]]

+

| 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]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/levy-response-31oct14-en.pdf Declined]

| 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9

Line 523: Line 565:

|-

| 22 October 2014

−

| dotgay LLC

+

| [[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 ~~process~~ related to the CPE for [[.gay]]

+

| 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]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lieben-response-31oct14-en.pdf Declined]

| 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9

Line 530: Line 572:

|-

| 18 December 2014

−

| Centre for Internet and Society

+

| [[Centre for Internet and Society]]

| Detailed & categorized reports of expenses relating to travel and meetings for the years 1999-2014. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-request-18dec14-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-17jan15-en.pdf Declined]

Line 541: Line 583:

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf Provided documentation from 2012 forward]

| 12

−

| 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 ~~the~~ new form of reporting would be overly burdensome

+

| 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

|-

| 24 December 2014

| Centre for Internet and Society

−

| Details of ~~cyber attacks~~ suffered by ICANN since 1999

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-23jan15-en.pdf Declined]

| 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, & 12

Line 552: Line 594:

| 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.

+

| 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.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-ombudsman-response-27jan15-en.pdf Declined]

| 2, 8, 9, & 12

Line 562: Line 604:

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-netmundial-response-27jan15-en.pdf 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.

+

| 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.

|-

| 12 January 2015

| Centre for Internet and Society

−

| Information pertaining to the formation and operation of ICANN's Globalization Advisory Groups

+

| 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 provided

+

| [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

| 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.

Line 580: Line 622:

| 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

+

| 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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-organogram-response-11feb15-en.pdf Responded] that most of the requested information, if it existed, was already posted on the ICANN website.

| No

Line 593: Line 635:

|-

| 20 January 2015

−

| Guru Acharya

+

| [[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.

+

| 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 [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/acharya-response-19feb15-en.pdf 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 [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150120-1-2015-02-24-en document was published in March]

| Initial response cited 1, 2, 3, & 9

Line 604: Line 646:

| [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)

| No

−

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

+

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

|-

| 11 February 2015

−

| Kin Sun

+

| [[Kin Sun]]

−

| Documents related to allegedly unauthorized transfer(s) of a domain name

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-13mar15-en.pdf Declined]

| 3 & 5

Line 630: Line 672:

| [[Paul Kane]]

| Workflow process documents with statistics for each stage of the IANA Root Zone Management Function

−

| 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 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

+

| 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

| Initial response cited 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, & 11

|

|-

| 27 April 2015

−

| James Bridle

+

| [[James Bridle]]

−

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

+

| 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

+

| [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

| 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 [[ccTLD]]s, as described in [[RFC 1591]]

Line 643: Line 685:

| 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.

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150605-1-petillion-05jul15-en.pdf 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

Line 649: Line 691:

|-

| 17 July 2015

−

| Edward Morris

+

| [[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. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150717-1-morris-17jul15-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150717-1-morris-14aug15-en.pdf 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>[https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-gnso-review-01jun15/msg00013.html GNSO2 Public Comment Listserv Archive - Personal Comment of Edward Morris], July 31, 2015

+

| 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

|-

| 22 July 2015

Line 667: Line 709:

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf Declined]

| 12

−

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

+

| Again, the 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

+

| 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.

| 1, 2, 5, & 9

Line 685: Line 727:

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

+

| 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

| 3, 5, & 6

Line 712: Line 754:

|-

| 10 September 2015

−

| Mark Seiden

+

| [[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]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150910-1-mark-seiden-10oct15-en.pdf 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

+

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

+

| 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-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.

| 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.

Line 728: Line 770:

| American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

| Information related to the determination that the Institute did not prevail in its [[Community Priority Evaluation]] for [[.cpa]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150918-2-18sep15-en.pdf Full request].

−

| [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-20150918-2-18oct15-en.pdf Provided the email] that approved the initiation of the [[CPE]], but otherwise declined to produce documents

| 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9

|

Line 735: Line 777:

| CPA Australia

| Information related to the determination that CPA Australia did not prevail in its [[Community Priority Evaluation]] for [[.cpa]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150918-1-18sep15-en.pdf Full request].

−

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

| 2, 3, 6, & 9

| Very similar request as the Am. Inst. of CPAs

Line 754: Line 796:

|-

| 17 November 2015

−

| Jeffrey Smith on behalf of Commercial Connect, LLC

+

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

| Documentation related to deliberations and decisions for [[.shop]] string contention set. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151117-1-smith-request-17nov15-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151117-1-smith-response-supporting-docs-15dec15-en.pdf Provided the notice emails] sent to Commercial Connect related to the .shop string contention process; otherwise pointed to public information and declined to disclose other documents

Line 769: Line 811:

| 30 November 2015

| The Centre for Internet and Society

−

| 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~~ 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].

+

| 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].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-2-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf Pointed to published documents]; otherwise declined to deliver more.

| 1, 2, 3, 8, & 9

Line 789: Line 831:

|-

| 11 February 2016

−

| Registrar Stakeholder Group Executive Committee

+

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

| Requested details of the travel support provided by ICANN with relation to the [[NCPH]] Intersessional meetings in 2015 and 2016

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160211-1-rrsg-response-12mar16-en.pdf Provided the requested information]

Line 797: Line 839:

| 23 April 2016

| Centre for Internet and Society

−

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

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-1-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf Pointed to published reports]

|

Line 804: Line 846:

| 23 April 2016

| Centre for Internet and Society

−

| Requesting "diversity analysis" documents of ~~public comments~~, similar to the [[IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group]]'s analysis of public comments related to its work on the [[IANA Transition]]

+

| 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-20160423-2-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf Declined]

|

Line 818: Line 860:

| 23 April 2016

| Centre for Internet and Society

−

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

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-4-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf Provided ICANN's policy], could not provide details on the training

| 5

Line 826: Line 868:

| Centre for Internet and Society

| Requesting "accurate" statistics regarding staff responses to DIDP requests. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-5-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf Full request].

−

| [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~~ the DIDP program and would post results on its website. Otherwise declined.

+

| [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.

| 2, 6, & 8

−

| "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."

+

| "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."

|-

| 26 April 2016

Line 838: Line 880:

|-

| 29 April 2016

−

| DotMusic Limited

+

| [[DotMusic]] Limited

| Extensive request for documents and other information to DotMusic's failed [[Community Priority Evaluation]] (CPE) for [[.music]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160429-1-dotmusic-request-29apr16-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160429-1-dotmusic-response-supporting-docs-15may16-en.pdf Provided email correspondence] between ICANN staff and the CPE provider; otherwise declined to disclose documents

Line 867: Line 909:

| 29 August 2016

| [[Michael Palage]]

−

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

+

| "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"

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160829-1-palage-request-response-28sep16-en.pdf Pointed to published documents]; declined to produce more

| 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, & 12

Line 873: Line 915:

|-

| 22 September 2016

−

| Dot Registry LLC

+

| [[Dot Registry LLC]]

−

| Request for ~~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].

+

| 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.

| 2, 8, & 9

Line 884: Line 926:

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160925-1-palage-request-response-25oct16-en.pdf Declined]

| 2, 6, 8, & 9

−

| 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 ~~ICANNâ€™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."

+

| 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."

|-

| 17 October 2016

Line 937: Line 979:

| 24 October 2016

| Centre for Internet and Society

−

| Correspondence between the [[Namibian Network Information Centre]] (NNIC) and ICANN; agreements between those ~~enitities~~ that "give administrative control" of [[.na]] to NNIC; and "outputs and ~~presenations~~ 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].

+

| 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 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-20161024-7-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)

| 10

|

Line 945: Line 987:

| Centre for Internet and Society

| Documents showing why ICANN only possesses specified breakdowns of [[Regional Internet Registry]] contribution to ICANN for three fiscal years (2003-2005); requesting that ICANN square its reporting of FY 2003 contributions with the specific breakdown of RIR contributions.

−

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

+

| [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

| No

| "Because the RIRs do not contribute to ICANN on an individual basis (with the exception of FY03 through FY05) ICANN does not have the breakdown that is sought through the Request. ICANN does not have, nor does ICANN seek any information from the NRO or the individual RIRs as to how individual RIRs may have contributed towards the ICANN contribution. ICANN does not have any input as to whether the RIRs contribute collectively or through individual contributions. As such, ICANN does not have any documents responsive to this item."

Line 964: Line 1,006:

|-

| 25 January 2017

−

| Ben Sobel

+

| [[Ben Sobel]]

| Information related to (1) the initial delegation of the [[.pr]] [[ccTLD]] to the University of Puerto Rico, and (2) documents, correspondence, and other records related to redelegation requests and decisions for [[.ag]], [[.bb]], [[.bz]], [[.bs]], [[.dm]], [[.do]], [[.gd]], [[.gy]], [[.jm]], [[.kn]], [[.lc]], [[.sr]], [[.tt]], and [[.vc]] during the time that those ccTLDs were managed by the University of Puerto Rico.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170125-1-sobel-response-24feb17-en.pdf Pointed] to published IANA reports and board meeting minutes related to some redelegation requests that were responsive to the query; noted several cases where delegation pre-dated ICANN. Request for "correspondence" denied.

Line 972: Line 1,014:

| 14 February 2017

| [[Michael Palage]]

−

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

+

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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170214-1-palage-response-16mar17-en.pdf Declined]

| 2, 9, & 10

Line 978: Line 1,020:

|-

| 5 May 2017

−

| Arif Ali on behalf of DotMusic Limited

+

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

| Documents related to the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review, including documents provided by the reviewing third party to ICANN. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170505-1-ali-request-05may17-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170505-1-ali-response-04jun17-en.pdf Pointed to public information]; denied request for documents from reviewer to ICANN on DCND grounds.

Line 985: Line 1,027:

|-

| 6 May 2017

−

| Avri Doria

+

| [[Avri Doria]]

| Documents related to ICANN & the ICANN Board responses to SSAC 045, which identified potential risks associated with the [[New gTLD Program]] in situations where previously invalid TLD strings were awarded to a registry during the applications process. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170506-1-doria-request-06may17-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170506-1-doria-response-05jun17-en.pdf Provided public documents, history, and context] but declined to disclose additional documents.

| 2, 8, 9, & 10

−

| 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.

+

| 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.

|-

| 18 May 2017

Line 996: Line 1,038:

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170518-1-ali-response-18jun17-en.pdf Pointed to public information], otherwise declined.

| 2, 3, 8, & 9

−

| 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

+

| 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

|-

| 8 June 2017

−

| Shaul Jolles on behalf of Dot Registry, LLC

+

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

| "Any and all" documents related to Dot Registry's community applications for [[.inc]], [[.llc]], and [[.llp]] that were used, produced, or contained in the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170608-1-shaul-jolles-obo-dot-registry-llc-request-08jun17-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170608-1-shaul-jolles-obo-dot-registry-llc-response-08jul17-en.pdf Pointed to public information]

| No

−

| "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."

+

| "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

| Arif Ali on behalf of DotMusic Limited and dotgay LLC

−

| 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].

+

| 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].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170610-1-ali-obo-dotgay-et-al-response-10jul17-en.pdf Responded that]: Items 1 & 3 were asked and answered in Ali's prior DIDP requests; items 2 & 4 are "not appropriate DIDP request[s]," and in any event are subject to DCNDs.

| 2, 3, & 8

Line 1,013: Line 1,055:

|-

| 13 June 2017

−

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

+

| [[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 ~~updated~~ regarding a similar planned report for FY 2012

+

| 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

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf Responded] with estimated timeframes until the publication of those reports

| No

Line 1,020: Line 1,062:

|-

| 14 June 2017

−

| [[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

+

| [[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.

+

| 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.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170614-1-petillion-obo-travel-reservations-srl-et-al-response-14jul17-en.pdf Responded] with links to public information, referred to prior response to Petillion regarding the DCNDs that prevented disclosure of any other documents.

| 2, 3, 5, 6, & 9

Line 1,027: Line 1,069:

|-

| 27 July 2017

−

| Karl S. Kronenberger

+

| [[Karl Kronenberger]]

| "All documents supporting or related to" [[Cyrus Namazi]]'s comment at a cross-community presentation at [[ICANN 59]] regarding the predicted loss of approximately 750 accredited registrars during FY 2018. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170727-1-kronenberger-request-redacted-27jul17-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170727-1-kronenberger-response-26aug17-en.pdf Pointed to public information], declined to disclose additional documents

Line 1,034: Line 1,076:

|-

| 10 January 2018

−

| Arif Ali on behalf of DotMusic Limited

+

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

| Laundry list of documents related to the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180110-1-ali-request-redacted-10jan18-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180110-1-ali-response-redacted-09feb18-en.pdf Declined]

Line 1,041: Line 1,083:

|-

| 15 January 2018

−

| Arif Ali on behalf of dotgay LLC

+

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

| Similar laundry list request for documents related to the [[Community Priority Evaluation]] process review. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180115-1-ali-request-redacted-15jan18-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180115-1-ali-response-redacted-14feb18-en.pdf Similarly denied]

Line 1,048: Line 1,090:

|-

| 1 February 2018

−

| Michael Karanicolas

+

| [[Michael Karanicolas]]

| (1) criteria for selection of "Regional Newcomer" fellows for [[ICANN 62]]; (2) the budget allocated for those fellows; and (3) the total number of regional newcomers selected

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180201-1-karanicolas-response-02mar18-en.pdf Responded] with details, history, and links to public information; request spurred ICANN to produce additional documentation for the program; ICANN declined to release emails that were responsive because of DCNDs

Line 1,062: Line 1,104:

|-

| 25 March 2018

−

| Jonathan Matkowsky on behalf of RiskIQ, Inc.

+

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

| All documents "referring or relating to enforcement forbearance from GDPR." [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180325-1-matkowsky-request-25mar18-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180325-1-matkowsky-response-24apr18-en.pdf Pointed to public information], declined to produce more

Line 1,069: Line 1,111:

|-

| 26 March 2018

−

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

+

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

| Fiscal Year 2017 reporting (similar to prior requests for detailed financial information)

−

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180326-1-bopanna-response-25apr18-en.pdf Initially responded] that the information would be ~~posed~~ 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-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

| No

|

Line 1,078: Line 1,120:

| Arif Ali on behalf of [[Afilias]]

| "Amended" several items from the February 2018 DIDP request, and proposed that other items from that request be produced under the terms of a confidentiality agreement. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180423-1-ali-request-23apr18-en.pdf Full request].

−

| [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.

+

| [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.

| 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, & 11

−

| "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. 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."

+

| "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. 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."

|-

| 25 May 2018

−

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

+

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

| Salary information for ICANN staff, including regional and gender-specific averages, and ICANN's compensation strategies.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180525-1-kurian-response-23jun18-en.pdf Pointed to public information], declined to produce more documents on DCND grounds

Line 1,091: Line 1,133:

| 10 June 2018

| [[George Kirikos]]

−

| 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.

+

| 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.

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180610-1-kirikos-response-10jul18-en.pdf Pointed to public information], declined to produce more on threshold grounds and DCND grounds.

| 2, 3, & 9

Line 1,097: Line 1,139:

|-

| 16 July 2018

−

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

+

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

| Breakdowns of ICANN employees by race and nationality

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20180716-1-sriram-response-15aug18-en.pdf Declined] because documents on citizenship did not exist, and because a racial breakdown would involve disclosing documents that were restricted under the DCNDs.

Line 1,104: Line 1,146:

|-

| 12 November 2018

−

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

+

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

| Documents related to ICANN's Fellowship Program, and specifically: instances where ICANN awarded a fellowship to an individual more than the maximum limit of 3 times; the decision process for awarding a fellowship beyond the maximum; and safeguards to ensure that the maximum is not exceeded

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20181112-1-bopanna-response-12dec18-en.pdf Responded] that the 3x limit on participation was not established until 2018, and would first be in effect for fellowship applications for [[ICANN 65]]. As such, no documents existed responsive to prior procedures.

Line 1,113: Line 1,155:

| Arif Ali on behalf of [[Afilias]]

| Correspondence and communication between [[Verisign]] and ICANN regarding: the [[.web]] contention set, Afilias' CEP and IRP regarding the same; and internal and external communications regarding the IRP Implementation Oversight Team's drafting and adoption of Section 7 of the Interim Procedures for IRPs. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20181221-1-ali-request-redacted-21dec18-en.pdf Full request].

−

| [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

+

| [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

| 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, & 12

| Afilias contended in their DIDP request that Verisign had undue influence on the creation and adoption of the Section 7 rules, to the detriment of Afilias and the Internet community as a whole.

|-

| 6 January 2019

−

| William Donovan

+

| [[William Donovan]]

| Information related to the [[Universal Acceptance Steering Group]] [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20190106-1-donovan-request-06jan19-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20190106-1-donovan-response-05feb19-en.pdf Pointed to public documents]; most items of the request were for information rather than documents, and some were accusatory.

Line 1,127: Line 1,169:

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

| Inquiring about the disposition of proceeds from ICANN's [[Auction of Last Resort|auctions of last resort]]

−

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

+

| [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

| No

|

Line 1,134: Line 1,176:

| Arif Ali on behalf of [[Afilias]]

| Further requests for correspondence & records of IRP-IOT proceedings

−

| [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 ~~respons~~ to the December 2018 DIDP request; in other cases, documents did not exist or were subject to DCND

+

| [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

| 3 & 8

|

|-

| 2 April 2019

−

| Ivan Castaño on behalf of the Government of Colombia

+

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

| Requesting documents related to Specifications 11 and 13 of the [[Registry Agreement]] adopted as part of the [[New gTLD Program]].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20190402-1-castano-response-23apr19-en.pdf Responded] that no documents existed re: amendments to Specification 13, and that registry operator requests to amend Specification 11 commitments were subject to DCND

| 3, 5, 6, & 8

−

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

+

| 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]]

|-

| 5 July 2019

Line 1,155: Line 1,197:

| [[Michael Palage]]

| Requesting documents and information regarding ICANN's 2016 amended and restated Articles of Incorporation, and their compliance with California statutes regarding public benefit corporations. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20191003-1-palage-request-03oct19-en.pdf Full request].

−

| [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.

+

| [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.

| No

| California adopted a "benefit corporation" statute as part of a trend of states permitting for-profit companies to base their decisions on social, environmental, and ethical concerns, as opposed to being solely guided by increasing shareholder value. "As discussed in response to Question No. 1, ICANN org is organized as a Non-For-Profit Public Benefit Corporation, which is a separate and distinct corporate form from a Public Benefit Corporation. The two types of entities are governed by different statutory requirements."

|-

| 13 December 2019

−

| Amy Ward, Mitch Stoltz and Jacob Malthouse

+

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

| Documentary information regarding the proposed transfer of [[.org]] registry operations to [[Ethos Capital]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20191213-1-ward-et-al-request-redacted-12dec19-en.pdf Full request]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20191213-1-ward-et-al-response-12jan20-en.pdf Provided history & context], declined to produce additional documents

Line 1,188: Line 1,230:

|-

| 10 June 2020

−

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

+

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

| Documents and information regarding the implementation of [[Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability#Work Stream 2| CCWG-Accountability Work Stream 2]] recommendations related to improving the office of the [[ICANN Ombudsman]]. [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20200610-1-kenyanito-request-redacted-10jun20-en.pdf Full request].

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20200610-1-kenyanito-response-10jul20-en.pdf Declined] for threshold and DCND reasons

Line 1,202: Line 1,244:

|-

| 20 October 2020

−

| John Baird

+

| [[John Baird]]

| A copy of ICANN's "Contractor Consulting Agreement"

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20201020-1-baird-response-19nov20-en.pdf No single agreement] because each vendor agreement is negotiated; declined to produce documents

Line 1,209: Line 1,251:

|-

| 4 February 2021

−

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

+

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

| Documents related to ICANN's approval of a change of control request from the registry operators owned and controlled by [[Afilias, Inc.]]

| [https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20210204-1-lavarello-et-al-response-05mar21-en.pdf Declined] for threshold and DCND reasons

JP

Bureaucrats, Check users, lookupuser, Administrators, translator

3,197

edits

Changes

Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (view source)

Revision as of 18:43, 7 February 2022

Navigation menu

Search