Thanks Rafik, Good points Remmy , Michael et al.

This is actually very important for accountability!

Does the DIDP have a robust appeal process? is it an appeal to an external
organisation or can one appeal the ICANN ombudsman? Is the
ombudsman empowered to make such decisions? And if so does the ICANN
executive really have to listen to him or anybody as a matter of fact. What
sanctions are there for non-compliance? Do proper reasons need to be
furnished to applicants who are refused information?

I agree that going to Court is time consuming, extremely expensive and
exhausting -  moreover it may not be an option as the jurisdiction of ICANN
( incorporated in USA) will pose a real problem to many (international
persons) and bringing actions by non-resident persons in the USA can be a
hassle.

The bottom line is that FOIA is one of the most powerful ways to ensure
transparency and accountability in an organisation. A DIDP policy that does
not allow for a fast and independent appeal of a refusal to disclose
information will mean that the DIDP policy is of no value. The DIDP policy
should be designed on a default position that information is disclosable
with certain classes of documents to be considered exempt from disclosure (
but available is the / a public interest test is meet).

Let me quickly add that I have not yet seen or read the DIDP policy thus my
comments are predicated solely on best practice. I should add that I've
done many FOIA court matters ( High Court and Court of Appeal) and my
dissertation for my masters in Law (LLM) in Telecommunications and IT Law
was on the FOIA.

Best regards

Karel DOUGLAS

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:48 AM, Joy Liddicoat <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> Hi Ed - I also want to say thanks for this initiative !
>
> Joy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> William Drake
> Sent: Monday, 24 August 2015 8:18 p.m.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: DIDP: Some Hope
>
> +1 this was a good thing to do and hopefully a precedent, many thanks Ed.
>
> Bill
>
> > On Aug 23, 2015, at 4:58 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > 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
> >>
> >>
>