Access To Knowledge (A2K)

DIDP Request #20 - Is Presumptive Renewal of Verisign’s Contracts a Good Thing?

asvatha — 2016-07-30T02:01:59Z

ICANN’s contract agreements with different registries contain a presumptive renewal clause. Unless they voluntarily give up their rights or there is a material breach by the registry operator, their contract with ICANN will be automatically renewed.

See the base registry agreement here.

In light of this, we filed a request asking ICANN for documents that discuss the rationale behind including the presumptive renewal clause. We also asked them for documents specific to the renewal of Verisign (.com and .net domains) and PIR (.org) contracts. The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN provided a surprisingly comprehensive response to our request. They provided documents in response to our request and stated the rationale that has been given for including a presumptive renewal clause. According to the response,

“Absent countervailing reasons, there is little public benefit, and some significant potential for disruption, in regular changes of a registry operator. In addition, a significant chance of losing the right to operate the registry after a short period creates adverse incentives to favor short term gain over long term investment.”

ICANN explains that the contracts have been drawn such that they balance the concerns above with the ability to replace a registry that doesn’t serve the community as it is obliged to do. The response also offers links to various documents substantiating this rationale.

We were provided an effective answer to our second question as well. ICANN’s response links us to various documents for the 2001, 2006 and 2012 renewals of Verisign’s contract for the .com domain. This includes a summary of the 2012 renewal, public comments for all three renewals and the proposed agreements.

For the .net domain, a presumptive renewal clause was not included in the 2001 Verisign contract which opened up the process to select an operator in 2005. ICANN chose to continue its relationship with Verisign and included the clause. The documents relevant to the 2011 renewal of the contracts have been provided.

After Verisign relinquished its rights over the .org domain in 2001, ICANN chose the Public Internet Society (PIR) to operate the domain. While there was no presumptive renewal clause in 2002, documents relevant to the 2006 and 2013 renewals have been provided.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contracts-a-good-thing

DIDP Request #19 - ICANN’s role in the Postponement of the IANA Transition

asvatha — 2016-07-29T16:37:04Z

In March 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Agency (NTIA) of the United States government announced plans to shift the Internet Assigned Names and Numbers (IANA) functions from ICANN to the global multistakeholder community. The initial deadline set for this was September 2015.

See NTIA announcement here.

In August 2015, NTIA announced that it would not be technically possible to meet this deadline and extended it by a year. NTIA stated,

“Accordingly, in May we asked the groups developing the transition documents how long it would take to finish and implement their proposals. After factoring in time for public comment, U.S. Government evaluation and implementation of the proposals, the community estimated it could take until at least September 2016 to complete this process.”

In our DIDP request, we asked ICANN for all documents that it had submitted to NTIA that were relevant to the IANA transition and its postponement from the date of the initial announcement— March 14, 2015 to the date of the announcement of extension — August 17, 2015. We specifically requested the documents requested by NTIA in May 2015 as referenced by this blogpost.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN’s response terms our request as “broadly worded” and assumes that our request is only related to documents about the extension of the deadline. It was not.

After NTIA’s announcement in 2014, ICANN launched a multi-stakeholder process and discussion at ICANN 49 in Singapore to facilitate the transition. The organizational structure of this process has been mapped out according to the different IANA functions that are being transitioned. Accordingly, we have the:

IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)
Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship)
Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP TEAM)
IANAPLAN Working Group (IANAPLAN WG)
Cross-Community Working
Group (CCWG-Accountability)

In addressing our request, ICANN references this multi-stakeholder community overseeing the transition. According to the response document, the ICG, CWG-Stewardship, CRISP Team, IANAPLAN WG and the CCWG-Accountability submitted responses directly to the NTIA leaving the ICANN with no documents responsive to our request.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-19-icann2019s-role-in-the-postponement-of-the-iana-transition

DIDP Request #18 - ICANN’s Internal Website will Stay Internal

asvatha — 2016-07-29T14:53:50Z

ICANN maintains an internal website accessible to staff and employees. We requested ICANN to provide us with a document with the contents of that website in the interest of transparency and accountability.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here. To no one’s surprise, not only did ICANN not have this document in “ICANN's possession, custody, or control,” even if it did it would be subject to DIDP conditions for non-disclosure.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-18-icann2019s-internal-website-will-stay-internal

DIDP Request #17 - How ICANN Chooses their Contractual Compliance Auditors

asvatha — 2016-07-29T02:20:59Z

At a congressional hearing on internet governance and progress, then President of ICANN Fadi Chehadi indicated that the number of people working on compliance audits grew substantially—from 6 to 24 (we misquoted it as 25)— in the span of a few years.

It is clear to us at CIS that the people in charge of these compliance audits perform an important function at ICANN. To that effect, we requested information on the 24 individuals mentioned by Mr Chehadi as well as the third party auditors who perform this powerful watchdog function. More specifically, we requested documents calling for appointments of the auditors and copies of their contracts with ICANN.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

In their response to the first part of our question, ICANN linked us to a webpage containing the names and titles of all employees working on contractual compliance. This page contains 26 names including the Contractual Compliance Risk and Audit Manager: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en

ICANN also described the process of selecting KPMG as their third party auditor in detail. A pre-selection process shortlists 5 companies that fit the following criteria: knowledge of ICANN, global presence, size, expertise and reputation. Then, ICANN issues a targeted Request For Proposal (RFP) to these companies asking them for their audit proposals. After a question and answer session, a proposal analysis and rating the scorecards, a “cross-functional steering committee” decided to go with KPMG. While the process has been discussed transparently, our questions remain unanswered.

The RFP would qualify as the document requested by us in the second part of the question (i.e.) a “document that calls for appointments to the post of the contractual compliance auditor.” Unfortunately, ICANN has not published the RFP citing the DIDP Conditions for Non-disclosure. However, the timeline for the RFP and other details have been posted here after our DIDP request. In addition, the contract between KPMG and ICANN has also not been published.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-17-how-icann-chooses-their-contractual-compliance-auditors

DIDP Request #16 - ICANN has no Documentation on Registrars’ “Abuse Contacts”

asvatha — 2016-07-29T02:11:52Z

Registrars on contract with ICANN are required to maintain an “abuse contact” - a 24/7 dedicated phone line and e-mail address to receive reports of abuse regarding the registered names sponsored by the registrar.

We wrote to ICANN requesting information on these abuse complaints received by registrars over the last year. We specifically wanted reports of illegal activity on the internet submitted to these abuse contacts as well as details on actions taken by registrars in response to these complaints.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

Our request to ICANN very specifically dealt with reported illegal activities. However, in their response, ICANN first broadened it to abuse complaints and then failed to give a narrowed down list of even those complaints.

In their response, ICANN indicated that they do not store records of complaints made to the abuse contact. This is stored by the registrars and is available to ICANN only upon request. However, since ICANN is only obliged to publish documents it already has in its possession, we did not receive an answer to our first question.

As for the second item, ICANN gave a familiarly vague answer, linking us to the Contractual Compliance Complaints page with a list of all the breach notices that have been issued by ICANN to registrars. A breach notice is relevant to our request only if it is in response to an abuse complaint, and the abuse complaint specifically deals with illegal activity. Even discounting that, this is not a comprehensive list when you take into account that a breach notice is published only “if a formal contractual compliance enforcement process has been initiated relating to an abuse complaint and resulted in a breach.”[1] What about the rest of the complaints received by the registrar?

In addition, ICANN refused to publish any communication or documentation of ICANN requesting reports of illegal activity under the DIDP non-disclosure conditions.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

[1] See ICANN response here (Pg 4): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-4-cis-abuse-complaints-01oct15-en.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-16-icann-has-no-documentation-on-registrars2019-201cabuse-contacts201d

DIDP Request #15: What is going on between Verisign and ICANN?

asvatha — 2016-07-29T02:01:06Z

During a hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on “Internet Governance Progress After ICANN 53,” President and CEO of ICANN - Mr Fadi Chehade indicated that ICANN follows up with registries and registrars on receipt of any complaint against them about violations of their contract with ICANN.

At CIS, we believe that any exchange of dialogue or any outcome from ICANN acting on these complaints needs to be in the public domain. Thus, our 15th DIDP request to ICANN were for documents pertinent to Verisign’s contractual compliance and actions taken by ICANN stemming from any discrepancies of Verisign’s compliance with its ICANN contract.

The DIDP request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

After sorting through a response designed to obfuscate information, it was clear that ICANN was not going to provide any of the details we requested. As mentioned in their previous responses, individual audit reports and the names of the registries associated with discrepancies are confidential under the DIDP Defined Conditions of Nondisclosure. Nevertheless, some details from the response are worth mentioning.

According to the response, “As identified in Appendix B of the 2012 Contractual Compliance Year One Audit Program Report, the following TLDs were selected for auditing: DotAsia Organisation Limited (.ASIA), Telnic Limited (.TEL), Public Interest Registry (.ORG), Verisign (.NET), Afilias (.INFO), and Employ Media LLC (.JOBS).” The response goes on to state that out of these 6 registries that were selected, only 5 chose to participate in the audit, the identies of which are once again confidential.

However, on further examination, it can be seen that Verisign (.NET) was chosen to participate in the audit the year after as well. Therefore, it’s clear that 2013 was the year Verisign was audited. Unfortunately, that was pretty much all that was relevant to our request in ICANN’s response.

Once again, ICANN was able to use the DIDP Defined Conditions of Nondisclosure, especially the following conditions to allow itself the ability not to answer the public:

Information exchanged, prepared for, or derived from the deliberative and decision-making process between ICANN, its constituents, and/or other entities with which ICANN cooperates that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to compromise the integrity of the deliberative and decision-making process between and among ICANN, its constituents, and/or other entities with which ICANN cooperates by inhibiting the candid exchange of ideas and communications.
Information provided to ICANN by a party that, if disclosed, would or would be likely to materially prejudice the commercial interests, financial interests, and/or competitive position of such party or was provided to ICANN pursuant to a nondisclosure agreement or nondisclosure provision within an agreement.
Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures.[1]

ICANN’s response to our request can be found here.

[1] See DIDP https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-15-what-is-going-on-between-verisign-and-icann

DIDP Request #14: Keeping track of ICANN’s contracted parties: Registrars

asvatha — 2016-07-28T16:34:27Z

In September 2016, we filed two separate DIDP requests regarding ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Goals.

The first one which we have written about here,[1] was regarding ICANN contracts with registries while the second one about registrars is briefed below. In our second request, we specifically asked for the following information:

Copies of the registrar contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (2014-2015).
A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.
A list of the registrars to whom such notices were served in the last year.
An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process.
A list of the registrars that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time.
Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.
Documents which identify the registrars who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract.
Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual non-compliance.
A copy of the registrar self-assessment form which is to be submitted to ICANN.

The DIDP request filed by Padmini Baruah can be viewed here.

What ICANN said

Information pertinent to item 1 and 3 can be found in the 2014 Contractual Compliance Annual Report here:https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-2014-13feb15-en.pdf. While this report contains detailed information regarding the audit, individual audit reports are subject to the DIDP Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure.

ICANN provided a link to all the communication templates used during the audit process, including the notice served by ICANN prior to conducting audits. (Item 2) It can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/audit-communication-template-04dec15-en.pdf. As mentioned in an earlier blog post, ICANN set aside USD 0.6 million for the Three Year Audit plan.[2] (item 4)

According to the Audit FAQ on ICANN website,[3] “If a contracted party reaches the enforcement phase per process, ICANN will issue a notice of breach in which the outstanding issues are noted. The response links us to the ICANN webpage where these breach notices are listed: https://www.icann.org/compliance/notices#notices-2014. (Item 5) According to the link, 61 registrars received breach notices in 2014; a full explanation has been provided for each notice. (Item 7 and 8) Since no site visits were conducted, ICANN does not possess any document regarding this.

According to the ICANN website, “The 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) requires ICANN-accredited registrars to complete an annual self-assessment and provide ICANN with a compliance certification by 20 January.”[4] The form for the same can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#compliance

ICANN’s response to our request can be found here.

[1] To be linked to the first post

[2] See FY15 budget (pg72): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-01dec14-en.pdf

[3] See Audit FAQ: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/faqs-2012-10-31-en

[4] See CEO certification: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ceo-certification-2014-01-29-en

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-14-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registrars

DIDP Request #13: Keeping track of ICANN’s contracted parties: Registries

asvatha — 2016-07-28T15:40:01Z

On multiple occasions, Fadi Chehade, then President and CEO of ICANN has emphasized the importance of conducting audits (internal and external) to ensure compliance of ICANN’s contracted parties. At a US congressional hearing, he spoke about the contract monitoring function of ICANN.

In September 2015, we filed two separate DIDP requests regarding ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Goals. The first one, briefed below, is regarding the contracts with registries and the second one is regarding ICANN contracts with registrars. This post contains some additional background information on the Contractual Compliance Goals at ICANN. In our first request, we specifically asked for the following information:

Copies of the registry contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (2014-2015).
A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.
A list of the registries to whom such notices were served in the last year.
An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process.
A list of the registries that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time.
Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.
Documents which identifies the registry operators who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract.
Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual non-compliance.

The DIDP request filed by Padmini Baruah can be viewed here.

What ICANN said

ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Goal is to ensure that all the parties that ICANN has entered into a contract with complies with the stipulations of the contract. This is done in several ways, including Contractual Compliance complaints and Audits.[1]

In 2012, ICANN initiated the Three Year Audit plan where one-third of registries were selected each year for an audit. In 2014, the third set of registries were audited. In response to Item 1, information about the audit for 2014 can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/contractual-compliance-ra-audit-report-2014-03feb15-en.pdf. At this link, we can also find the list of registries that went through the audit process in 2014 (item 3). Monthly updates on overall contractual compliance can be found here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/update-2013-03-15-en.

ICANN linked us to all the communication templates used during the audit process, including the notice served by ICANN prior to conducting audits. (Item 2) It can be found here: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/audit-communication-template-04dec15-en.pdf

In the operating plan and budget for FY15, ICANN sets aside USD 0.2 million for the New Registry Agreement Audit and USD 0.6 million for the Three Year Audit plan.[2]

Other documents to answer this question such as invoices from the external auditing firm are subject to non-disclosure under DIDP policies. Since all registries responded in a timely manner and no site visits were conducted, there are no documents to answer items 5 and 6.

The audit report linked above contains information on deficiencies identified during the audit. ICANN states that registries addressed these deficiencies during the remediation process. However, there is a caveat to this discussion. The names of the registries that are associated with these discrepancies remains confidential, subject to the DIDP Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure. (Item 7) ICANN goes on to state that it is not required to confirm if the registries have taken appropriate action and thus does not have any documents in response to item 8. While ICANN’s audit process seems thorough, does this last statement indicate a lack of enforcement mechanisms on ICANN’s part?

ICANN’s response to our request can be found here.

[1]. See Contractual Compliance website: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-2012-02-25-en

[2]. See FY15 budget (pg72): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-01dec14-en.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-13-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registries

DIDP Request #12: Revenues

Aditya Garg — 2015-09-14T15:32:37Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) sought information from ICANN on their revenue streams by sending them a second request under their Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. This request and their response have been described in this blog post.

CIS Request

22 July 2015

To:

Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board

Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer

Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India

All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks

Sub: Raw data with respect to granular income/revenue statements of ICANN from 1999-2011

We would like to thank ICAN for their prompt response to our earlier requests. We appreciate that the granular Revenue Details for FY14 have been posted online.[1] We also appreciate that a similar document has been posted for FY13.[2]

And we hope that one for FY12 would be posted soon, as noted by you in your Response to our Request No. 20141222-1.[3]

As also noted by you in the same request, similar reports cannot be prepared for FY99 to FY11 since “[i]t would be extremely time consuming and overly burdensome to cull through the raw data in order to compile the reports for the prior years”.[4]

Additionally, it was also mentioned that the “relevant information is available in other public available documents”.[5]

Hence, we would like to request for the raw data for years FY99 to FY11, for our research on accountability and transparency mechanisms in Internet governance, specifically of ICANN. Additionally, we would also like to request for the links to such public documents where the information is available.

We look forward to the receipt of this information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Please feel free to contact us in the event of any doubts regarding our queries.
Thank you very much.
Warm regards,
Aditya Garg,
I Year, National Law University, Delhi
For Centre for Internet & Society
W: http://cis-india.org

ICANN Response

ICANN referred to our earlier DIDP request (see here) where we had sought for a detailed report of their granular income and revenue statements from 1999-2014. They refused to disclose the data on grounds that it would be ‘time consuming’ and ‘overly burdensome’, which is a ground for refusal as per their exceptions to disclosure.

Our request may be found here, and their response is linked to here.

[1]. See FY14 Revenue Detail By Source, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy2014-revenue-source-01may15-en.pdf.

[2]. See FY13 Revenue Detail By Source, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/fy2013-revenue-source-01may15-en.pdf

[3]. See Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request No. 20141222-1, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf.

[4]. Id

[5]. See Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request No. 20141222-1, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues

DIDP Request #11: NETmundial Principles

Aditya Garg — 2015-09-14T15:08:40Z

The Centre for Internet & Society (CIS) followed up on the implementation of the NETmundial Principles that ICANN has been endorsing by sending them a second request under their Documentary Information Disclosure Policy. This request and their response have been described in this blog post.

22 July 2015

To:

Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President

Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board

Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board

Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer

Sub: Details of documents within ICANN regarding implementation of NETmundial Principles and documents modified within ICANN as a result of the same

It is our understanding that ICANN is one of the founding members of the NETmundial Initiative. And hence, it has been credited in the public forum for championing the Initiative.[1]

Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President of ICANN, has maintained that it is time for the global community to act and implement the Principles set forth in the initiative.[2]

ICANN itself, in response to one of our earlier requests, has acknowledged that "NETmundial Principles are high-level statements that permeate through the work of any entity –particularly a multistakeholder entity like ICANN."[3]

We, therefore, request for all existing documents within ICANN which represent its efforts to implement the NETmundial Principles within its working. Additionally, we would also want to request for all the documents which were modified as the result of ICANN’s support of the NETmundial Initiave, highlighting the modification so made.

We look forward to the receipt of this information within the stipulated period of 30 days. Please feel free to contact us in the event of any doubts regarding our queries.

Thank you very much.

Warm regards,
Aditya Garg,
1st Year, National Law University, Delhi for Centre for Internet & Society

ICANN Response

ICANN in their response pointed to an earlier DIDP request that we had sent in, and they replied along the same lines. They brought to our attention that ICANN was not responsible for the implementation of the NETMundial Principles, despite it being one of the founding members of the Initiative. They reiterated their earlier statement of ICANN not being the “…home for implementation of the NETmundial Principles or the evolution of multistakeholder participation in Internet governance.” They have failed to provide us with documentary proof of the implementation of these principles, and have only pointed to statements which indicate a potential prospective adoption of said the initiative [4]; the responses have been near identical to those for the earlier DIDP request, which you can find here.

Further, ICANN claims that the information we seek falls within the scope of the exceptions to disclosure they lay down, as it is not within their operational activities, an explanation that fails to satisfy us. As always, they have used the wide scope of their non-disclosure policy to avoid providing us with the requisite information.

The request can be found here, and ICANN’s response has been linked here.

[1]. See McCarthy, I’m Begging You To Join, The Register (12 December 2014), http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/

[2]. See NETmundial Initiative Goes Live, Gobal Internet Community Invited to Participate (Press Release), https://www.netmundial.org/press-release-1

[3]. See Response to Documentary Information Disclosure Policy Request No. 20141228-1-NETmundial, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-netmundial-response-27jan15-en.pdf

[4]. Such as Objective 4.3 of their Strategic Five Year Plan. “Demonstrate leadership by implementing best practices in multistakeholder mechanisms within the distributed Internet governance ecosystem while encouraging all stakeholders to implement the principles endorsed at NETmundial” at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/strategic-plan-2016-2020-10oct14-en.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-11-netmundial-principles

DIDP Request #10 - ICANN does not know how much each RIR contributes to its Budget

asvatha — 2016-07-27T14:57:00Z

In an effort to understand the relationship between the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and ICANN, we requested current and historical information on the contract fees paid by the five RIRs (AfriNIC, ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC and RIPE NCC) to ICANN annually.

We acknowledged that the independently audited financial reports on ICANN’s website list the total amount from all RIRs as a lump sum.[1] However, we specifically sought a breakdown of these fees detailing contributions made by each RIR from 1999 to 2014. Not only will this information help understand the RIR-ICANN relationship, it will also be relevant to the IANA transition.

The request filed by Protyush Choudhury can be found here.

What ICANN said

According to ICANN’s response to our request, the five RIRs (AfriNIC, ARIN, APNIC, LACNIC and RIPE NCC) make a voluntary annual contribution to ICANN’s budget through the Number Resource Organization (NRO). [2] Since Financial Year 2000, this contribution has been made to ICANN as an aggregate amount without the kind of breakdown requested by us with the exception of FY03, FY04 and FY05. The breakdown of the contribution for those years is as below:

FY03: APNIC - $129,400; ARIN - $159,345; RIPE - $206,255
FY04: APNIC - $160,500; ARIN - $144,450; RIPE - $224,700; LACNIC - $5,350
FY05: APNIC - $220,976; ARIN - $218,507; RIPE - $358,086; LACNIC - $25,431

The response links back to the independent financial reports mentioned by us in the request. These reports can be found on the ICANN website here.

On closer examination of the audit reports of FY03, 04 and 05, it is clear that the information provided in their response is either incomplete or incorrect. According to KPMG’s audit report of FY03, the total contribution from Address Registries is US$535,000. The breakdown in the response adds up only to $494,600. The response does not account for the extra $40,400. If only APNIC, ARIN and RIPE contributed to ICANN in 2003, where did the other $40,400 come from? Moreover, why is it listed as an Address Registry Fee in the audit report if it was a voluntary contribution?[3]

The “Address Registry Fees” in the audit reports for FY04 and FY05 match the amounts in the response: $535,000 and $823,00 respectively. ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

For the reader’s reference, the audit reports for FY00 - FY14 are linked below:

[1] See audited financial reports: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/current-en

[2] See letter from NRO to ICANN: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/akplogan-to-twomey-23mar09-en.pdf

[3]. See report for FY03 (pg 4): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun03-en.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-10-icann-does-not-know-how-much-each-rir-contributes-to-its-budget

DIDP Request #9 - Exactly how involved is ICANN in the NETmundial Initiative?

asvatha — 2016-07-27T15:53:22Z

The importance and relevance of knowing ICANN’s involvement in the NETmundial Initiative cannot be overstated.

It was reported recently that ICANN contributed US$200,000 to the Initiative.[1] Following this report, we requested the details of all expenses incurred by ICANN for NMI till date. This includes formal contributions to NMI as well as costs incurred towards travel and accommodation of ICANN board and staff to meetings relevant to the NMI discussion.

Apart from these financial details, we also requested information regarding the number of staff working on NMI from ICANN and the hours clocked by them for the same. We further specified that we would like this information to gauge ICANN’s involvement beyond its technical mandate. The request filed by Geetha Hariharan can be found here.

What ICANN said

In its response, ICANN separated the questions in the request into two categories: a) Expenses incurred by ICANN towards the NETmundial Initiative and b) Other resources (personnel and hours) allocated to the Initiative by ICANN. The first category in the request includes: formal contribution to the NETmundial Initiative; travel costs of ICANN board and staff; and costs of maintenance of other sponsored parties. The second includes the number of staff involved in the NETmundial Initiative from ICANN and the number of hours spent working on it.

To answer both, the response directs us to the Memorandum of Collaboration (MOC)[2]signed by the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee (CGI.br), ICANN and the World Economic Forum (WEF) to set up the NETmundial Initiative according to the outcome document from the initial NETmundial meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Some of the important takeaways from the MOC that are relevant to our request are the following:

Each party to the MOC agrees to pay $201,667 towards operational expenses on signature of the agreement.
Total anticipated cost of the NETmundial Initiative is $605,000 (also mentioned in the response).
Each party will assign 1 staff member to the NETmundial Initiative secretariat during the inaugural period to smoothen the process. This staff member will commit at least 50% of their time towards Secretariat work.

This information is important but it does not provide a comprehensive answer to our query. It does not, for example, answer if ICANN contributed anything more than the $201,667 the MOC specifies. It also does not tell us if ICANN allotted any staff apart from the designated secretariat member to work on NETmundial Initiative.

Further, the response states that ICANN does not keep track of costs according to the number of hours or the topic but rather according to strategic objectives. Since ICANN is not required to create a document that does not already exist to answer a DIDP enquiry,[3] we have no way of knowing the specific amount of time or money spent on the NETmundial Initiative by ICANN. The response instead directs us to the financial presentation at ICANN50 where the costs of attending the NETmundial Meeting at Sao Paulo is detailed. While this is interesting (ICANN spent $1.5 million)[4] it is not a satisfactory answer to our question.

ICANN justifies its lack of direct answers by expressing that not only is the request “overbroad", it is also “subject to the following DIDP Condition of Nondisclosure: Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; and (iii) complying with which is not feasible.”[5]

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here.

[1] See McCarthy, ‘I’m Begging You To Join’ – ICANN’s NETmundial Initiative gets desperate, THE REGISTER (12 December 2014), http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im begging you to join netmundial initiative gets d esperate/

[2] See MOC: https://www.netmundial.org/sites/default/files/MOC-%20CGI.br,%20ICANN%20&%20WEF.pdf

[3] See Disclosure Policy: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

[4] See ICANN50 Finance Presentation (Pg 4): https://london50.icann.org/en/schedule/thu-finance/presentation-finance-26jun14-en

[5] See ICANN conditions for non-disclosure: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-9-exactly-how-involved-is-icann-in-the-netmundial-initiative

DIDP #34 On granular detail on ICANN's budget for policy development process

akriti — 2019-07-06T01:23:55Z

ICANN has Advisory Committees which help guide the policy recommendations that the ICANN community develops while its Supporting Organizations are charged with developing policy recommendations for a particular aspect of ICANN's operations. Supporting Organizations are composed of volunteers from the community. ICANN publishes a combined budget for all these bodies under the head of policy development and CIS inquired about the financial resources allocated to each of them specifically.

The ICANN budgets are published for public comment yet the community does not have supporting documents to illustrate how the numbers were estimated or the rationale for allocation of the resources. There is a lack of transparency when it comes to the internal budgeting.

This DIDP is concerned with the policy development budget which, as Stephanie Perrin of the Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group pointed out, was merely 5% of ICANN’s total budget, a number significantly low for a policy making organization. Thus, the information we request is a detailed breakdown for the budgets for every Advisory Council as well as Supporting Organizations for the previous fiscal year. You can find the attached request here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-34-on-granular-detail-on-icanns-budget-for-policy-development-process

DIDP #33 On ICANN's 2012 gTLD round auction fund

akriti — 2019-07-09T15:51:47Z

This DIDP was filed to inquire about the state of the funds ICANN received from the last gTLD auctions.

In 2012, after years of deliberation ICANN opened the application round for new top level domains and saw over 1930 applications. Since October 2013, delegation of these extensions commenced with it still going on. However, 7 years since the round was open there has been no consensus on how to utilize the funds obtained from the auctions. ICANN until its last meeting was debating on the legal mechanisms/ entities to be created who will decide on the disbursement of these funds. There is no clear information on how those funds have been maintained over the years or its treatments in terms of whether they have been set aside or invested etc. Thus, our DIDP questions ICANN on the status of these funds and can be found here.

The response to the DIDP received on 24th April, 2019 states that that even though the request asked for information, rather than documentation, our question was answered. Reiterating that the DIDP mechanism was developed to provide documentation rather than information. It stated that on 25 October 2018, Resolution 2018.10.25.23 was passed that compels the President and CEO to allocate $36 million to the Reserve Fund. The gTLD auction proceeds were allocated to separate investment accounts, and the interest accruing from the proceedings was in accordance with the new gTLD Investment Policy.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/akriti-bopanna-april-4-2019-didp-33-on-icann-s-2012-gtld-round-auction-fund

DIDP #32 On ICANN's Fellowship Program

akriti — 2018-11-12T15:58:30Z

In furtherance of its capacity building functions, ICANN selects Fellows for every public meeting. These are individuals from underserved and underrepresented communities who are trained to become active participants in the ICANN community.

These fellows are assigned a mentor and receive training on ICANN's various areas of engagement. They are also given travel assistance to attend the meeting. While the process and selection criteria is detailed on their website, CIS had some questions as to the execution of these.

Our DIDP questioned the following aspects:

Has any individual received the ICANN Fellowship more than the stated maximum limit of 3 times?
If so, whose decision and what was the justification given for awarding it the 4th time and any other times after that?
What countries did any such individuals belong to?
How many times has the limit of 3 been breached while giving fellowships?
What recording mechanisms are being used to ensure that awarding of these fellowships is kept track of, stored and updated? Are these public or privately made available anywhere?

You can access the request here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-31-on-icanns-fellowship-program