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 3rd 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