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 >> >>