Hi, I was also wondering if there are any comments that any of you have on the document I had sent across earlier on the thread ? Regards Hi Karel, the current public comment is about the proposal with the regard work stream 1. I was suggesting to add a mention in NCSG (to be submitted) comment about DIDP so the CCWG can setup a subgroup to work on that . so collecting the remarks shared here can be a good start. Best, Rafik 2015-08-31 9:33 GMT+09:00 Karel Douglas <[log in to unmask]>: > I have done a lot of work on FOIA matters. The DIDP ( akin to the FOIA ) > is to ensure transparency. In such situations an organisation is not the > final arbitrator on whether the information is to be disclosed. When a > request is denied the applicant usually has an appeal to an independent > body that would consider whether the denial to disclose the information was > reasonable / lawful. That is an important safe guard for the applicant as > most organisations are rooted in the old fashion of secrecy and by default > prefer not to disclose information. > > Rafik - Please let me know when comments ( for Stream 2 ) are due for the > DIDP as I will make a few important points. > > regards > > Karel Douglas > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Padmini <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Dear Rafik >> >> That sounds like a great idea. I had expressed my concerns before the >> CCWG about the DIDP process earlier this month and they had assured me that >> they would take it up as a part of work stream 2. Would be great to have >> comments in place before that. >> >> Regards >> Padmini >> On 28 Aug 2015 07:23, "Rafik Dammak" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Thanks everyone for sharing documents and your thought here. >>> to move forward, we can start with the group of people who are showing >>> interest on the topic and looking to participate e.g. analysis of DIDP. >>> With such group we can work on the transparency and DIDP implementation and >>> provide input including recommendations to CCWG (accountability working >>> group) on that matter. We can setup ad-hoc mailing to discuss further and >>> agree on how to proceed. >>> >>> On other hand, we can also mention the transparency and DIDP matter in >>> the NCSG comment that is going to be submitted soon . >>> >>> Do we agree to follow this approach? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> 2015-08-28 0:08 GMT+09:00 Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask] >>> >: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks to everyone for sharing their experiences with the system. I >>>> think it's very good that this conversation is taking place. Use and >>>> interest in the DIDP are critical for ensuring that transparency is >>>> taken seriously at ICANN. Without demand, there is no motivation to >>>> enhance supply. >>>> >>>> With that being said, I would be very interested in exploring advocacy >>>> options to push for structural improvements in the policy. CLD has a >>>> lot of experience in advocating for transparency among governments and >>>> other international institutions, but we are a bit new to these >>>> processes with ICANN. Can someone shed light as to what our options >>>> might be to push these issues forward? I think that CLD would be happy >>>> to draft a proper analysis of the DIDP, compared to international >>>> standards and disclosure policies at comparable institutions, if that >>>> would be helpful. But once we have concrete recommendations, how could >>>> we take them forward? >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Michael Karanicolas >>>> Senior Legal Officer >>>> Centre for Law and Democracy >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:37 AM, <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> > Dear All, >>>> > >>>> > Reiterating Michael's point on pushing for structural improvements to >>>> the DIDP, this may be of interest. >>>> > >>>> > Kevin Murphy from Domain Incite had filed a DIDP request with ICANN >>>> to post more unredacted documents from its Independent Review Process case >>>> with DotConnectAfrica. ICANN has responded by stating that in their >>>> consideration of DIDP requests, "we evaluate whether the public interest in >>>> disclosing documentary information meeting one or more conditions for >>>> nondisclosure outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure." >>>> > >>>> > Expectedly, while ICANN did invoke the “Defined Conditions for >>>> Non-Disclosure”, it seems the pressure in this particular case seems to be >>>> working. ICANN has agreed to publish any redacted information that can be >>>> released without consulting third parties involved by 31st August 2015 and >>>> have initiated a consultation process with third parties to seek >>>> authorization for releasing more information. >>>> > >>>> > You can read more about this on the Domain Incite Website: >>>> http://domainincite.com/19190-icann-will-post-more-uncensored-africa-info >>>> > >>>> > ICANN's full response is available here: >>>> http://domainincite.com/docs/DIDP-Response-Murphy-20150727-1.pdf >>>> > >>>> > Sincerely, >>>> > >>>> > Jyoti Panday >>>> > >>>> > ----- Original Message ----- >>>> > From: "Michael Karanicolas" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> > To: [log in to unmask] >>>> > Sent: Monday, 24 August, 2015 19:44:00 >>>> > Subject: Re: DIDP: Some Hope >>>> > >>>> > Hi, >>>> > >>>> > Thanks very much for sharing this development, and for your important >>>> > work in testing the boundaries of ICANN's access policy. In addition >>>> > to our work on Internet governance, my NGO, CLD, is very active on >>>> > transparency issues, so this is an interesting intersection for us. >>>> > >>>> > At a glance, I can see a few problems with the DIDP, as compared >>>> > against better right to information laws in force around the world. A >>>> > public interest test, like the one you mention, is a staple of strong >>>> > right to information legislation. However, the DIDP's public interest >>>> > test is highly problematic in that, in addition to allowing for >>>> > disclosure of material which falls under an exception, it expands the >>>> > scope of exempted material so that ICANN can withhold virtually >>>> > anything if it believes that the public interest weighs against >>>> > disclosure. In progressive right to information laws, the public >>>> > interest test is only a mechanism for disclosure of information that >>>> > falls under a listed exception, NOT an avenue for withholding >>>> > information that doesn't fall under an exception. For example, >>>> > Norway's Freedom of Information Act says that: >>>> > >>>> > "Where there is occasion to exempt information from access, an >>>> > administrative agency shall nonetheless consider allowing full or >>>> > partial access. The administrative agency should allow access if the >>>> > interest of public access outweighs the need for exemption." >>>> > >>>> > If, as Ed says, 97% of requests are being partially or fully rejected, >>>> > this seems a fairly clear indication that the system is not providing >>>> > proper transparency. As a comparator, a nationwide study of different >>>> > levels of government in Canada gave the federal government a C grade >>>> > for releasing 39% of requested documents in full (better performing >>>> > jurisdictions, like the city of Calgary, released 78% of requested >>>> > documents in full). >>>> > >>>> > ICANN may not be a government, but they perform an inherently public >>>> > function over a shared global resource, and have an obligation to >>>> > provide transparency. Proper oversight and public accountability is >>>> > only possible with a strong right to information, to allow observers >>>> > to get a clear picture of what's going on behind the scenes. I hope we >>>> > can view structural improvement of the DIDP as an important shared >>>> > goal, and work together to push for a policy which better facilitates >>>> > our right of access to information. >>>> > >>>> > Best wishes, >>>> > >>>> > Michael Karanicolas >>>> > Senior Legal Officer >>>> > Centre for Law and Democracy >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 5:47 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques < >>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >> Thank you Ed for initiating this DPIP. It will indeed be interesting >>>> to see how this is followed up. >>>> >> >>>> >> It may also be worth examining >>>> >> - how the Board Governance Committee is populated (is there an open >>>> call to all Board members to send in a Statement of Interest? Who gets to >>>> determine its final membership?) >>>> >> - how Board Committees are populated, and how their Chairs are >>>> chosen (yes, formally all are "elected" by the full Board, but the >>>> interesting question is how the initial list is set up, because once that >>>> list is made known, no Board member will vote down a colleague). >>>> >> >>>> >> Jean-Jacques. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> ----- Mail original ----- >>>> >> De: "William Drake" <[log in to unmask]> >>>> >> À: [log in to unmask] >>>> >> Envoyé: Lundi 24 Août 2015 10:18:00 >>>> >> Objet: 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >