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