Changes

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

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

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

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

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

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

==Criticism==

==Criticism==