With great thanks to NCSG member Ed Morris, NCSG filed an appeal (attached) of ICANN staff's decision to not release any new information to NCSG in response to our DIDP request for information about staff's decision to adopt a policy creating new rights for trademark holders in the DNS.  The DIDP process is supposed be be part of ICANN's "accountability" process (sort of like a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information) intended to ensure transparency in the development of public policies.  But if staff can just blow those DIDP requests off too and claim the info is either secret or too burdensome to release, ICANN's claim of "accountability and transparency" is nothing more than self-serving PR that lacks any basis in reality.

NCSG's appeal is attached and I'm keeping track of the filings in this tragedy here:
  https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/ICANN+Unaccountability

Is ICANN Accountable, Transparent, and "Bottom-Up" in its Governance?
NCSG Reconsideration Request of ICANN staff's decision to impose the "trademark + 50" policy for new GTLDS (Request 13-3 on 19 April 2013)
Attachments to NCSG Reconsideration Request 13-3
ICANN's 1st Response (what ICANN's lawyers hoped they could get away with) 16 May 2013
NCSG Letter to Board of Directors Regarding ICANN's 1st Response  17 June 2013
GNSO Council discussion on impact of 1st response on bottom-up multi-stakeholder model of governance 13 June 2013
ICANN's 2nd Response (revised response following community-wide outrage to 1st response) 25 June 2013
ICANN Board New GTLD Program Committee Approves 2nd Response 2 July 2013
NCSG DIDP request for info surrounding ICANN staff's decision to create new rights for large trademark holders after Guidebook published 24 July 2013
ICANN "Response" 24 August 2013
NCSG Appeal of ICANN's secrecy claims over most information surrounding ICANN staff's decision to create new rights for trademark holders in DNS 8 September 2013