Hi,

This is an excellent step forward.  Hopeful as I am that ICANN will
improve this is a step in the right direction. 

Thanks for the consistent  effort you put into this.

avri


On 23-Aug-15 10:34, Edward Morris wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>  
> Too often we come to the Discuss list with less than positive news.
> ICANN has done this, a WG has done that: invariably the news is grim,
> without a lot of hope. As representatives of noncommercial users we’re
> constantly battling corporate interests, governments, ICANN corporate
> and other parties that aren’t as big a supporter of the bottom up
> multi-stakeholder model as we are. I guess it’s natural then that it
> often seems as if we’re fighting hard just to maintain the status quo.
>  
> The Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP) is supposed to
> function as ICANN’s equivalent of the American Freedom of Information
> Act (FOIA). Except it doesn’t work. We did a study a little over a
> year ago that showed that over 97% of all DIDP requests were rejected
> in part or in full. None of the Requests we’ve filed have ever
> resulted in the disclosure of any information not already made public.
>  
> Until now.
>  
> I filed a personal DIDP with ICANN last month to try to get
> information concerning ICANN’s contractual information with Westlake
> Governance, the New Zealand company contracted to provide an
> independent evaluation of the GNSO as part of the wider GNSO Review.
> In my view, and that of many here, their work has bordered on the
> negligent. In our public filings, both as individuals and in group
> form, members of the NCSG have been scathing in their critique of
> Westlake’s methodology. My DIDP sought information that would help us
> determine whether Westlake met the criteria set by ICANN in awarding
> it the contract to conduct the independent review.
>  
> I expected ICANN to reject my DIDP. That’s what they do, or I guess I
> should say did. You can find the ICANN response to my DIDP request here:
>  
> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150717-1-morris-14aug15-en.pdf
>  
> The substance of the response concerning Westlake raises some issues
> that need to be considered and responded to. They will be. What I
> think is most important, though, is that for the first time I’m aware
> of ICANN has released 3^rd party contractual information as a result
> of a DIDP Request. In doing so it specifically used a balancing test
> that it actually is supposed to use per DIDP rules and procedures but
> rarely, if ever, does. Specifically:
>  
> “ICANN has determined that the public interest in disclosing the
> remainder of a commercial contract, containing commitments between two
> contracting entities, does not outweigh the harm that may be disclosed
> by such disclosure”.
>  
> Taken alone, that is not good news. It means we didn’t get all of the
> information I asked for. Of course, it also means we got some of it. A
> first. I will be filing a Reconsideration Request with the Board
> within the week to attempt get ICANN to release more contractual data.
> I will be doing so, however, from a much stronger position than I’ve
> ever been in before.
>  
> Usually ICANN just dismisses our requests outright, giving us links to
> information that is already public, and leaves us having to beg the
> Board for any documentation whatsoever, a request they promptly deny.
> This time ICANN has acknowledged our right to certain contractual
> data, the only question is how much we are entitled to. It will be
> very interesting to see how the Board Governance Committee responds to
> the forthcoming Reconsideration Request. Where does the Board place
> the line in the balancing test between corporate confidentiality and
> public disclosure? This is a question the Board will have to address
> in responding to my Reconsideration Request. They will do so knowing
> that all of those involved in the Accountability effort will be
> looking at their response.
>  
> An open and transparent corporation isn’t going to be built in a day.
> I did want folks to see, though, that slowly progress is being made in
> opening ICANN up, albeit at a very slow pace. Those heavily involved
> in the Accountability effort – Robin, Matt, Paul, Brett, James and
> Farzi, amongst others – need to be commended for their work. This
> initial response to my DIDP request may only be a small step forward
> but it is movement in a positive direction. That’s more than we have
> had in the past. Let’s hope the Board takes the opportunity my
> Reconsideration will afford them to really open things up.
>  
> Best,
>  
> Ed
>  
>  


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus