Centre for Internet and Society

DIDP Request #4: ICANN and the NETmundial Principles

geetha — 2015-03-05T08:28:44Z

CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of ICANN's implementation of the NETmundial Principles that it has endorsed widely and publicly. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.

CIS Request

27 December 2014

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 implementation by and within ICANN of the NETmundial Outcome Document (April ‘14)

We express our appreciation at ICANN’s prompt acknowledgement of our previous DIDP request, and await the information. We would, in the meanwhile, request information regarding ICANN’s internal measures to implement the NETmundial Outcome Document.[1]

In a post titled Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial,[2] Mr. Chehade emphasized the imperative to carry forward the NETmundial principles to fruition. In nearly every public statement, Mr. Chehade and other ICANN representatives have spoken in praise and support of NETmundial and its Outcome Document.

But in the absence of binding value to them, self-regulation and organizational initiatives pave the way to adopt them. There must be concrete action to implement the Principles. In this regard, we request information about mechanisms or any other changes afoot within ICANN, implemented internally in recognition of the NETmundial Principles.

At the IGF in Istanbul, when CIS’ Sunil Abraham raised this query,[3] Mr. Chehade responded that mechanisms ought to and will be undertaken jointly and in collaboration with other organisations. However, institutional improvements are intra-organisational as well, and require changes within ICANN. An example would be the suggestions to strengthen the IGF, increase its term, and provide financial support (some of which are being achieved, though ICANN’s financial contribution to IGFSA is incongruous in comparison to its financial involvement in the NETmundial Initiative).

From ICANN, we have seen consistent championing of the controversial NETmundial Initiative,[4] and contribution to the IGF Support Association.[5] There are also mechanisms instituted for IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability,[6] as responses to the NTIA’s announcement to not renew the IANA functions contract and related concerns of accountability.

In addition to the above, we would like to know what ICANN has done to implement the NETmundial Principles, internally and proactively.

We hope that our request will be processed within the stipulated time period of 30 days. Do let us know if you require any clarifications on our queries.

Thank you very much.

Warm regards,

Geetha Hariharan

Centre for Internet & Society

W: http://cis-india.org

ICANN Response

ICANN's response to the above request disappointingly linked to the very same blogpost we note in our request, Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial. Following this, ICANN points us to their involvement in the NETmundial Initiative. On the question of internal implementation, ICANN's response is defensive, to say the least. "ICANN is not the home for the implementation of the NETmundial Principles", they say. In any event, ICANN defends that it already implements the NETmundial Principles in its functioning, a response that comes as a surprise to us. "Many of the NETmundial Principles are high-level statements that permeate through the work of any entity – particularly a multistakeholder entity like ICANN – that is interested in the upholding of the inclusive, multistakeholder process within the Internet governance framework", notes ICANN's response. Needless to say, ICANN's response falls short of responding to our queries.

Finally, ICANN notes that our request is beyond the scope of the DIDP, as it does not relate to ICANN's operational activities. Notwithstanding that our query does in fact seek ICANN's operationalisation of the NETmundial Principles, we are now confused as to where to go to seek this information from ICANN. If the DIDP is not the effective transparency tool it is aimed to be, who in ICANN can provide answers to these questions?

ICANN's response may be found here. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found in this table (Request S. no. 4).

[1] See NETmundial Multi-stakeholder Statement, http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf.

[2] See Chehade, Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial, http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/turning-talk-into-action-after-netmundial/.

[3] See ICANN Open Forum, 9^th IGF 2014 (Istanbul, Turkey), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cio31nsqK_A.

[4] 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/.

[5] See ICANN Donates $50k to Internet Governance Forum Support Association, https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-12-18-en.

[6] See NTIA IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition & Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes, https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles

DIDP Request #6: Revenues from gTLD auctions

geetha — 2015-03-10T10:59:37Z

CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking information regarding revenues received from gTLD auctions. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.

CIS Request

12 January 2015

To:

Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President

Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board

Sub: Revenues from gTLD auctions

It is our understanding that an auction for a Generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) is used as a last-resort mechanism in order to resolve string contention, i.e., when there are groups of applications for same or confusingly similar new gTLDs. As of now, the ICANN website only furnishes information of the winning applicant and the winning price, as regards each new gTLD auction.[1] We have observed that information regarding the bids from all other applicants is not available. The revenue information provided to us[2] does not include revenues from new gTLDs.

In this regard, we request you to provide us with the following information:

(i) How many gTLDs have been sold via the auction process, since its inception?

(ii) What were the starting and winning bids in the ICANN auctions conducted?

(iii) What revenue has ICANN received from the gTLD auctions, since the first ICANN auction was conducted? Please also provide information about the winner (name, corporate information provided to/ available with ICANN).

(iv) How are proceeds from the gTLD auction process utilized?

We believe that this information will give us a framework for understanding the gTLD auction process within ICANN. Furthermore, it will assist us in understanding the manner and purpose for which the proceeds from the auctioning process are utilized, in the broader structure of ICANN transparency and accountability.

We hope that our request will be processed within the stipulated time period of 30 days. Do let us know if you require any clarifications on our queries.

Warm regards,

Lakshmi Venkataraman,

IV Year, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad,

for Centre for Internet & Society

W: http://cis-india.org

ICANN Response

ICANN's response to the above query is positive. ICANN states that all information surrounding the auctions is available on the New gTLDs microsite, and on the Auctions page: http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions. The current status of auction proceeds and costs are available at http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds, and auction results are at https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults. The utilization of proceeds from the auctions is yet to be decided by the ICANN Board: “[auction] proceeds will be reserved and earmarked until the Board determines a plan for the appropriate use of the funds through consultation with the community. Auction proceeds are net of any Auction costs. Auction costs may include initial set-up costs, auction management fees, and escrow fees.”

ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found here. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found in this table (Request S. no. 6).

[1] See Auction Results, https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults.

[2] See ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues, http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-6-revenues-from-gtld-auctions

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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #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 #21 - ICANN’s Relationship with the RIRs

asvatha — 2016-07-30T03:42:36Z

At CIS, we wanted a clearer understanding of ICANN’s relationship with the 5 internet registries. The large amount contributed by the RIRs to ICANN’s funding lead us to question the nature of this relationship as well as the payment. We wrote to ICANN asking them for these details.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN’s response linked us to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) which represents the 5 RIRs. The MoU replaces the ones signed by ICANN and the individual RIRs. The response also links us to a series of letters written by the NRO to ICANN reaffirming their commitment to the MoU. Interestingly, the MoU does not mention anything about payments or monetary contributions.

In response to the second part of our request focusing on their financial relationship, ICANN gave us the same information as they did earlier. However, as pointed out in this post, that information is either incomplete or inaccurate. Further, they reject the idea that providing anything more than the audited financial reports is necessary for public benefit. According to them, “the burden of compiling the requested documentary information from 2000 to the present would require ICANN to expend a tremendous amount of time and resources.” Therefore, they classified our request as falling under this condition for non-disclosure:

“Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or querulous individual.”

We fail to see how an organization like ICANN does not already have its receipts and documentation in order. If they do, it would not be burdensome to publish them and if they don’t, well, that’s worrying for a lot of different reasons.

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs

DIDP Request #22 - Reconsideration Requests from Parties affected by ICANN Action

asvatha — 2016-07-30T03:52:01Z

According to ICANN by-laws, ICANN has the responsibility to answer to reconsideration requests filed by those directly affected by its actions.

See ICANN bye-laws here

The board governance committee must submit an annual report to the board containing the following information (paraphrased):

Number and nature of Reconsideration Requests received including an identification of whether they were dismissed, acted upon or are pending.
If pending, the length of time and explanation if they have been pending for more than 90 days.
Explanation of other mechanisms ICANN has made available to ensure its accountability to those directly affected by its actions.

CIS requested copies of documents containing all this information. The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN surmised that all the information we sought can be found in their annual reports. ICANN linked us to those: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/annual-reports-2012-02-25-en

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

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action

DIDP Request #23 - ICANN does not Know how Diverse its Comment Section Is

asvatha — 2016-07-30T05:55:15Z

While researching ICANN and the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), we came across a diversity analysis report of a public comment section.

See ICG report here.

We requested ICANN for similar reports on the ICANN public comment section. The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN stated that they do not conduct diversity analysis on their comment sections. This is a shame, given that the one from ICG was so informative, clear and concise. Instead they provided us with links to reports and analyses of the different topics that were up for comments and an annual report on public comments.

ICANN’s public comments section is one of the important ways in which different stakeholders and community members get involved with the organization. A diversity analysis of this section for different topics could help in informing the public about which parts of the world actually get involved in ICANN through this mechanism We suggest that ICANN make it a regular part of their report.

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

https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is

DIDP Request #25 - Curbing Sexual Harassment at ICANN

asvatha — 2016-07-30T06:14:29Z

Markus Kummer at Public Forum 2 mentioned that ICANN has standards of behavior regarding sexual harassment that are applicable for its staff.

Marrakech Public Forum 2

In light of that statement, CIS requested ICANN to publish the following information:

Information about the individual or organization conducting ICANN’s sexual harassment training
Materials used during this training
ICANN’s internal sexual harassment policy

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN’s response answered our questions adequately. The organization conducting their sexual harassment training is NAVEX Global. It is an interactive online training and as such, all materials are within that platform. Besides, ICANN could not publish these materials as it would be an infringement of NAVEX Global’s intellectual property right. ICANN also attached with the response, their internal sexual harassment policy.

ICANN's response to our DIDP request (and the attached policy document) may be found here.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann

DIDP Request #27 - On ICANN’s support to new gTLD Applicants

asvatha — 2016-07-30T08:03:18Z

In order to promote access to the New gTLD Program in developing regions, ICANN set up the New gTLD Applicant Support Program (Program) which seeks to facilitate cooperation between gTLD applicants from developing countries and those willing and able to support them financially (and in kind).

Click for Applicant Support Directory

We requested ICANN for information about this program. Specifically, we asked them for information on:

The number of applicants to the program and the amount received by them;
The basis on which these applicants were selected;
The amount that has been utilized thus far for this program;
Contributions by donors;
What “in kind” support means and includes.

The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found here.

What ICANN said

ICANN answered all our questions in a satisfactory manner. There were three applicants to the program. Two of these: Nameshop, and Ummah Digital Ltd, did not meet the eligibility criteria listed in the handbook and therefore only one other applicant, DotKids, received the financial support. Of the USD 2,000,000 set aside, USD 135,000 was awarded to them.

The eligibility criteria is listed in the New gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook and candidates are evaluated by the Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP), “which was comprised of five volunteer members from the community with experience in the domain name industry, in managing small businesses, awarding grants, and assisting others on financial matters in developing countries.”

The USD 2,000,000 allotted to this program was set aside by ICANN’s board and as it is not exhausted, no external contributions were sought by ICANN (in cash or in kind). However, ICANN failed to explain what “in kind” contributions would be.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants