+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
>> 
>>