Thanks Pranesh, The links are useful. It was very interesting reading. I was shocked to read the ICANN bylaws and discover that there is not an independent appeal process to a denial of requested information. In effect this means that the DIDP policy is weak and not effective to ensure accountability and transparency at ICANN! https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en regards Karel DOUGLAS On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Pranesh Prakash <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Dear all, > A colleague of mine, who is in the process of joining this list, wish to > convey this update from CIS: > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Padmini Baruah > Date: Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM > > We at CIS had earlier sent 12 DIDP requests to ICANN, and we received > responses for 11 of them. As this table shows, the majority of ICANN's > responses are negative. In 9 requests out of 11, ICANN provides no new > information apart from what CIS had already identified in the Requests. > Please find below links to all the requests we had sent. It is a sad state > of affairs that the list of grounds for non-disclosure is so extensive and > ambiguous enough for it to become a catch-all. > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150722-2-2015-08-21-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150722-1-2015-08-21-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150206-1-2015-03-17-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150113-1-2015-02-13-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150112-1-organogram-2015-02-13-en > > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150112-1-globalization-advisory-2015-02-13-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20150112-1-2015-02-10-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141228-1-ombudsman-2015-01-28-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141228-1-netmundial-2015-01-28-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141224-1-2015-01-28-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141222-1-2015-01-22-en > https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/20141218-1-2015-01-21-en > > > Regards, > Pranesh > > Edward Morris <[log in to unmask]> [2014-08-26 07:58:52 -0400]: > >> Hi, >> >> Public comments are now open for a proposal to change the threshold the >> Board needs to act contrary to GAC advice from it’s current simple >> majority to a 2/3 vote >> ( >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/bylaws-amend-gac-advice-2014-08-15-en >> ). There has been considerable discussion about this issue on the NCUC >> list >> during which I suggested we might want to do a DIDP in order to become >> fully >> informed about the impetus for this change. This proposal has received >> some >> support. >> >> The goals of the DIDP are two fold: >> >> 1. To learn more about the dynamics that has led to this proposal. Is >> there >> resistance on the Board? That would be useful to know as we plan our >> response. >> >> 2. I’m hopeful that this may be the first DIDP in recent history to >> actually result in the release of documents. As I demonstrate in the >> attached draft, the usual reasons cited by staff for refusing to give >> requested information – the DCND – do not apply in this instance. >> >> If, despite this, staff refuses to give us any additional information on >> matters concerning a change in the Bylaws, the most serious of all issues, >> it strengthens our case that current transparency rules should in no way >> be >> confused with the FOIA standards suggested in the Thune / Rubio letter. >> Our >> call for greater transparency in ICANN would be strengthened. >> >> I’d like to ask members of the NCSG PC to please take a look at the >> attached DIDP draft, make changes as necessary and decide whether or not >> to >> proceed with this approach. Time is of the essence. ICANN has 30 days to >> respond to this DIDP Request once filed and the Reply Period for the >> proposed Bylaws change ends on October 6th. It would be nice to get a >> response from ICANN prior to the close of the Reply Period so we as a >> community and as individuals can comment on the basis of what we receive, >> if >> anything. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Ed >> >> P.S. To those on the NCUC list my apology for the cross post. As Avri >> astutely suggested, if I’m asking for support of the NCSG PC the draft >> should be posted on the SG list. Now it is. >> >> > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Policy Director, Centre for Internet and Society > http://cis-india.org | tel:+91 80 40926283 > sip:[log in to unmask] | xmpp:[log in to unmask] > https://twitter.com/pranesh_prakash > >