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 >> >>>> >> >>>> >> > >