Here's a summary of my findings.



Padmini Baruah
V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
NLSIU, Bangalore

On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Hi Padmini,
>
> In addition to the strong and independent adjudicator for information
> request appeals that we discussed below (which will require encoding
> appointment and independence criteria), the obligation to provide reasons
> for every refusal, as well as clear rules limiting the imposition of
> excessive fees on information requestors, I think it would be worthwhile
> including a proactive disclosure mechanism.
>
> In doing so, I would go one step further than most proactive disclosure
> mechanisms in FOI laws and add a mechanism by which individuals can request
> categories of information / activity to be added to a list of information
> that is periodically disclosed. Something similar to the Australian law:
> 8(2) The agency must publish the following information: (g) information
> in documents to which the agency routinely gives access in response to
> requests under Part III (access to documents)
>
> Best,
> Tamir
>
>
>
> On 10/12/2015 8:35 AM, Padmini wrote:
>
> Dear all,
>
> This thread has been extremely insightful as far as the LEA process is
> concerned. Nonetheless, I would like to draw the conversation back to the
> original point of concern that I had raised, name with respect to the *public
> transparency  *that the DIDP process is meant to enhance. It would be
> great if we had some suggestions on how this could be enhanced.
>
> My analysis shows that there is a severe lack of responses from ICANN, and
> there are overbroad exclusions. What are some best practices that you all
> think should be adopted in this regard? It is crucial that there be
> *meaningful* transparency and not mere lip service.
>
> Regards
>
> Padmini Baruah
> V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)
> NLSIU, Bangalore
>
> On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks James and Rafik,
>>
>> This sounds good. I think I agree caution is advisable with respect to
>> getting ICANN to impose a rigid framework (or oversee that framework), but
>> it may be a useful way to impose a general transparency requirement?
>>
>> Best,
>> Tamir
>>
>>
>> On 10/11/2015 10:54 AM, James Gannon wrote:
>>
>> I reached out to some of the registrars and they are not aware of any
>> formal process that LEAs would go through on the ICANN side, the process
>> appears to be to merely forward straight to the registrar with no direct
>> engagement with the LEA in question. We can/should put this question to
>> Allan Grogan when he visits us as I think its an interesting one.
>>
>> -Jaes
>>
>> From: NCSG-Discuss on behalf of Rafik Dammak
>> Reply-To: Rafik Dammak
>> Date: Sunday 11 October 2015 at 2:49 p.m.
>> To: "[log in to unmask]"
>> Subject: Re: DIDP Analysis
>>
>> Hi Tamir,
>>
>> 2015-10-11 4:10 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]>:
>>
>>> Thanks Rafik,
>>>
>>> On second though, I think you are probably right. I know for .CA, LEA
>>> requests go directly to CIRA but now that I think about it, it must be
>>> because of the way our WHOIS is setup. It would make sense for LEA requests
>>> to go to registrars rather than ICANN.
>>>
>>>
>> ccTLD space is another world, even more diverse and unknwon :)
>>
>>
>>> If that's the case though then, as you say, it might still be worth
>>> exploring transparency reports, even if these end up coming from the GAC or
>>> are imposed onto registrars via ICANN policy. As an accountability
>>> mechanism, these reports are becoming fairly standard to have in the
>>> telecommunications context..
>>>
>>
>> ICANN sounds receiving requests and it happened that its teams get
>> involved in some operations which raised the issue about the expansion of
>> ICANN remit .
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not sure if the DIDP process is the most appropriate mechanism for it
>>> though. Any thoughts on how something like that could be moved forward (or
>>> reasons why it should not be moved forward) would be appreciated.. There
>>> might be a clearer picture of how to design such a thing after the dublin
>>> meeting (which, regrettably, I cannot attend).
>>>
>>>
>> maybe not but the transparency report seems a good framework to start
>> with if we talk about compliance and abuse reports.  I won't think that
>> ICANN should push the registrars and registries for a specific way to do it
>> , but if we can work the contracted parties on that matter it will be
>> worthy to explore. there are already some guidelines/principles/ framework
>> that we can suggest here to registries and registrars. such transparency
>> would protect more users interests.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>>
>>> On 10/10/2015 9:28 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Tamir,
>>> 2015-10-10 2:11 GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps a single independent commissioner-type may make the most sense.
>>>> The trick I think would be to ensure independence. That tends to be
>>>> easier to do if there are more than one, because you can allocate one
>>>> per stakeholder group. Still, I think by encoding some criteria (no
>>>> strong industry or ICANN affil for 2 years back or something; nomination
>>>> committee w/CS representation; dedicated funding for independence) it
>>>> can be done.
>>>>
>>>> Another quick thought here: I did not see a proactive disclosure section
>>>> in the document. Would it be worth adding?
>>>>
>>>> Related, does anyone know if ICANN handles law enforcement requests or
>>>> whether these are handled by the registrars? If so, it would seem that
>>>> including the obligation to issue annual LEA transparency reports would
>>>> not be out of line.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> to be honest, it is unclear how ICANN handle direct requests from LEA,
>>> while we may get more information from registrars on the type of requests
>>> they get.
>>>  there is some work going with the new Compliance Chief Officer
>>> regarding how to handle requests or abuse reports (but not necessarily LEA)
>>> . here a blog post with some updates
>>> https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-activity
>>> (there are 2 sessions at ICANN meeting in wednesday 21st Oct
>>> https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-practices-combating-abuse
>>> & https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-compliance . I
>>> invited weeks ago The Compliance Chief Officer to come to NCSG meeting in
>>> Tuesday 20th Oct so we can discuss with him.
>>>
>>> I would highlight that LEAs have their GAC Public Safety working group
>>> and it has several sessions in Dublin meeting too. that was shared by the
>>> LEAs representatives who came to NCSG meeting in Buenos Aires. it will be
>>> interesting to see what they are planning to do and push for.
>>>
>>> definitely, the idea of LEA transparency reports should be suggested .
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/7/2015 8:46 AM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>>>> > That's a very interesting idea. I feel like the structure of appeals
>>>> > is probably the trickiest conceptual aspect of improving the DIDP, so
>>>> > good to consider alternatives. I think in part it would depend on the
>>>> > level of demand for information that ICANN gets, and how often appeals
>>>> > go forward. It's also important to bear in mind that, whoever is
>>>> > deciding these things, they need to have access to absolutely
>>>> > everything ICANN has, and a high level of familiarity with the inner
>>>> > workings of ICANN, so that they could determine, for example, whether
>>>> > particular information would compromise the integrity of ICANN's
>>>> > deliberative and decision-making process in line with the second
>>>> > defined condition for nondisclosure.
>>>> >
>>>> > This is in addition to the qualities Karel mentions (robust, cost
>>>> > effective, timely appeals) - which I also fully agree with.
>>>> >
>>>> > On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Tamir Israel <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> On 10/6/2015 1:02 PM, Michael Karanicolas wrote:
>>>> >>> This sort of brings us back to a fundamental challenge with
>>>> reforming ICANN's
>>>> >>> access to information system, which is the need for some sort of
>>>> analogous independent branch (I'm not completely certain the Ombudsman fits
>>>> the bill).
>>>> >> On this point, I'm not sure how far we dare go here, but would it be
>>>> >> unreasonable to set up an arb panel comparable to the ones private
>>>> ones
>>>> >> used for the UDRP (only, of course, appointed by a cross-stakeholder
>>>> >> nomination committee and with strict independence criteria) for
>>>> >> evaluating such things?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Best,
>>>> >> Tamir
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>