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
>> 
>>