Thanks Pranesh,
The links are useful. It was very interesting reading. I was shocked to
read the ICANN bylaws and discover that there is not an independent appeal
process to a denial of requested information.
In effect this means that the DIDP policy is weak and not effective to
ensure accountability and transparency at ICANN!
https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en
regards
Karel DOUGLAS
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Pranesh Prakash <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Dear all,
> A colleague of mine, who is in the process of joining this list, wish to
> convey this update from CIS:
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Padmini Baruah
> Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM
>
> We at CIS had earlier sent 12 DIDP requests to ICANN, and we received
> responses for 11 of them. As this table shows, the majority of ICANN's
> responses are negative. In 9 requests out of 11, ICANN provides no new
> information apart from what CIS had already identified in the Requests.
> Please find below links to all the requests we had sent. It is a sad state
> of affairs that the list of grounds for non-disclosure is so extensive and
> ambiguous enough for it to become a catch-all.
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150722-2-2015-08-21-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150722-1-2015-08-21-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150206-1-2015-03-17-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150113-1-2015-02-13-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150112-1-organogram-2015-02-13-en
>
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150112-1-globalization-advisory-2015-02-13-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150112-1-2015-02-10-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141228-1-ombudsman-2015-01-28-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141228-1-netmundial-2015-01-28-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141224-1-2015-01-28-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141222-1-2015-01-22-en
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141218-1-2015-01-21-en
>
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> [2014-08-26 07:58:52 -0400]:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Public comments are now open for a proposal to change the threshold the
>> Board needs to act contrary to GAC advice from it’s current simple
>> majority to a 2/3 vote
>> (
>> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en
>> ). There has been considerable discussion about this issue on the NCUC
>> list
>> during which I suggested we might want to do a DIDP in order to become
>> fully
>> informed about the impetus for this change. This proposal has received
>> some
>> support.
>>
>> The goals of the DIDP are two fold:
>>
>> 1. To learn more about the dynamics that has led to this proposal. Is
>> there
>> resistance on the Board? That would be useful to know as we plan our
>> response.
>>
>> 2. I’m hopeful that this may be the first DIDP in recent history to
>> actually result in the release of documents. As I demonstrate in the
>> attached draft, the usual reasons cited by staff for refusing to give
>> requested information – the DCND – do not apply in this instance.
>>
>> If, despite this, staff refuses to give us any additional information on
>> matters concerning a change in the Bylaws, the most serious of all issues,
>> it strengthens our case that current transparency rules should in no way
>> be
>> confused with the FOIA standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio letter.
>> Our
>> call for greater transparency in ICANN would be strengthened.
>>
>> I’d like to ask members of the NCSG PC to please take a look at the
>> attached DIDP draft, make changes as necessary and decide whether or not
>> to
>> proceed with this approach. Time is of the essence. ICANN has 30 days to
>> respond to this DIDP Request once filed and the Reply Period for the
>> proposed Bylaws change ends on October 6th. It would be nice to get a
>> response from ICANN prior to the close of the Reply Period so we as a
>> community and as individuals can comment on the basis of what we receive,
>> if
>> anything.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ed
>>
>> P.S. To those on the NCUC list my apology for the cross post. As Avri
>> astutely suggested, if I’m asking for support of the NCSG PC the draft
>> should be posted on the SG list. Now it is.
>>
>>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society
> http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283
> sip:[log in to unmask] | xmpp:[log in to unmask]
> https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash
>
>
|
