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 > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus