Centre for Internet and Society

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 Request #8: ICANN Organogram

geetha — 2015-03-17T11:39:16Z

CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of its oragnisational structure and headcount of all staff. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.

CIS Request

13 January 2015

To:

Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board

Mr. Fadi Chehade, President and CEO

Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India

Sub: ICANN organogram

In order to understand ICANN’s organizational structure, decision-making and day-to-day functioning, may we request an organogram of ICANN. We request that the organogram include ICANN’s reporting hierarchy, mentioning positions held in all departments. Wherever possible (such as middle and senior management), we request names of the ICANN staff holding the positions as well. Along with this, could you also provide a count per department of the number of ICANN staff employed in all departments as of this date?

We await your favorable response and the requested information within the prescribed time limit. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any clarifications.

Thank you very much.

Warm regards,

Geetha Hariharan

Centre for Internet & Society

W: http://cis-india.org

ICANN Response

ICANN does not provide all the information we requested, but it responded with the following:

First, ICANN has responded that its current staff headcount is approx. 310. ICANN states that it already makes publicly available an organisational chart. This is immensely useful, for it sets out the reporting hierarchies at senior and mid-managerial levels. However, it doesn't tell us the organisational structure categorised by all departments and staff in the said departments. The webpages of some of ICANN's departments list out some of its staff; for instance, Contractual Compliance, Global Stakeholder Engagement and Policy Development (scroll down).

What you will notice is that ICANN provides us a list of staff, but we cannot be sure whether the team includes more persons than those mentioned. Second, a quick glance at the Policy Development staff makes clear that ICANN selects from outside this pool to coordinate the policy development. For instance, the IANA Stewardship Transition (the CWG-IANA) is supported by Ms. Grace Abuhamad, who is not a member of the policy support staff, but coordinates the IANA mailing list and F2F meetings anyway. What this means is that we're no longer certain who within ICANN is involved in policy development and support, whom they report to, and where the Chinese walls lie. This is why an organogram is necessary: the policy-making and implementation functions in ICANN may be closely linked because of staff interaction, and effective Chinese walls would benefit from public scrutiny.

Now, ICANN says that one may explore staff profiles on the Staff page. While short biographies/profiles are available for most staff on the Staff page, it's unclear what departments they work in, how many staff members work each in department, whom they report to, and what the broad range of their responsibilities include.

Privacy concerns do not preclude the disclosure of such information for two reasons. First, staff profiles imply a consent to making staff information public (at least their place in the organisational structure, if not their salaries, addresses, phone extension numbers, etc.). Second, such information is necessary and helpful to scrutinise the effectiveness of ICANN's functioning. Like the example of the policy-making process mentioned above, greater transparency in internal functioning will itself serve as a check against hazards like partisanism, public comment aggregation, drafting of charters for policy-making and determining scope, etc. While the functioning itself may or need not change, scrutiny can ensure responsibility from ICANN and its staff.

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. 8).

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-8-organogram

DIDP Request #7: Globalisation Advisory Groups

geetha — 2015-03-17T10:07:26Z

CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking information regarding the creation and dissolution of the President's Globalisation Advisory Groups. The GAGs were created to advise the ICANN Board on its globalisation efforts, and to address questions on Affirmation of Commitments (AOC), policy structures, legal structure, root server system, the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and Internet governance. 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

Ms. Theresa Swineheart, Senior Advisor to the President on Strategy

Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India

Sub: Creation and dissolution of the President’s Globalisation Advisory Groups

On 17 February 2014, at a Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, the Board passed a resolution creating the President’s Globalisation Advisory Groups.1 Six Globalisation Advisory Groups were created, including on IANA globalization, legal structures, Internet governance, the Affirmation of Commitments, policy structures and the root server system.2 According to the minutes of the meeting, the Advisory Groups were to meet with the community at ICANN49 (Singapore, March 2014), make recommendations to the Board, and the Board would present their reports at ICANN50 (London, June 2014).3 Mr. Chehade was vested with the authority to change the Advisory Groups and their composition without the need for a further resolution, but the manner of dissolution was not laid out.

ICANN lists the Advisory Groups on its “Past Groups” page, with no further information.4 Presumably, the Groups remained in existence for at most one month. No explanation is provided for the reasons regarding the dissolution of all the Advisory Groups. There are no reports or transcripts of meetings with the community at ICANN49 or recommendations to Mr. Chehade or the Board.

The Globalisation Advisory Groups covered issues crucial for ICANN and the global Internet governance community, including its seat (“Legal Structures”), the Affirmation of Commitments (considered critical for ICANN’s accountability), the IANA stewardship transition, and ICANN’s (increasing) involvement in Internet governance. Given this, we request the following information:

Of the six Globalisation Advisory Groups created, is any Group active as of today (12 January 2015)?
When and how many times did any of the Groups meet?
On what date were the Groups dissolved? Were all Groups dissolved on the same date?
By what mechanism did the dissolution take place (oral statement, email)? If the dissolution occurred by way of email or statement, please provide a copy of the same.
Did any of the six Globalisation Advisory Groups present any report, advice, or recommendations to Mr. Chehade or any member(s) of the Board, prior to their dissolution? If yes, please provide the report/recommendations (if available) and/or information regarding the same.
Why were the Advisory Groups dissolved? Has any reason been recorded, and if not, please provide an explanation.

We await your favorable response and the requested information within the prescribed time limit. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you require any clarifications.

Thank you very much.

Warm regards,
Geetha Hariharan
Centre for Internet & Society

ICANN Response

ICANN's response to this request is positive. ICANN states that the Board did indeed set up the six Globalisation Advisory Groups (GAGs) on 17 February 2014 to tackle issues surrounding ICANN's globalisation efforts. The Affirmation of Commitments (AOC), policy structures, legal structure, root server system, the IANA multistakeholder accountability, and Internet governance were issues taken up by the GAGs. However, after the NTIA made its announcement regarding the IANA transition in March 2014, the GAGs were disbanded so as to avoid duplication of work on issues that "had a home in the global multistakeholder discussions". As a result, by a Board resolution dated 27 March 2014, the GAGs were dissolved.

This is an example of a good response to an information request. Some documentation regarding the creation and dissolution of the GAGs existed, such as the Board resolutions. The response points us to these documents, and summarises the reasons for the GAGs' creation and dissolution.

It is possible that this response is clear/comprehensive because the GAGs no longer exist, and in any event, did not perform any work worth writing about. Queries about ICANN's involvement in Internet governance (NETmundial, the NETmundial Initiative, etc.) garner responses that are, to say it informally, cage-y and surrounded by legalese.

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. 7).

[1] See Approved Board Resolutions | Special Meeting of the Board, https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2014-02-17-en.

[2] See President’s Globalisation Advisory Groups, https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/globalization-19feb14-en.pdf.

[3] See Minutes | Special Meeting of the Board, https://www.icann.org/resources/board- material/minutes-2014-02-17-en.

[4] See Past Committees, Task Forces, and Other Groups, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/past-2012-02-25-en.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-7-globalisation-advisory-groups

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 #5: The Ombudsman and ICANN's Misleading Response to Our Request

geetha — 2015-03-06T11:11:31Z

CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of the complaints received and resolved, parties involved and the nature of complaints under the Ombudsman process. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below. ICANN's response is misleading in its insistence on confidentiality of all Ombudsman complaints and resolutions.

CIS Request

26 December 2014

To:
Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board

Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President

Mr. Chris LaHatte, Ombudsman, ICANN

Sub: Details regarding complaints submitted to the ICANN Ombudsman

We are very pleased to note that ICANN’s transparency and accountability mechanisms include maintaining a free, fair and impartial ombudsman. It is our understanding that any person with a complaint against the ICANN Board, staff or organization, may do so to the designated ombudsman.[1] We also understand that there are cases that the ICANN ombudsman does not have the authority to address.

In order to properly assess and study the efficiency and effectiveness of the ombudsman system, we request you to provide us with the following information:

(i) A compilation of all the cases that have been decided by ICANN ombudsmen in the history of the organization.

(ii) The details of the parties that are involved in the cases that have been decided by the ombudsmen.

(iii)A description of the proceedings of the case, along with the party that won in each instance.

Further, we hope you could provide us with an answer as to why there have been no ombudsman reports since the year 2010, on the ICANN website.[2] Additionally, we would like to bring to your notice that the link that provides the ombudsman report for the year 2010 does not work.

In order to properly assess the mechanism that ICANN uses for grievance redressal, it would be necessary to examine the details of all the cases that ICANN ombudsmen have presided over in the past. In this regard, kindly provide us with the above information.

We do hope that you will be able to furnish this information to us within the stipulated time period of 30 days. Do not hesitate to contact us if you have any doubts regarding our queries. Thank you so much.

Yours sincerely,
Lakshmi Venkataraman
NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, for Centre for Internet & Society
W: http://cis-india.org

ICANN Response

In its response, ICANN declines our request on grounds of confidentiality. It refers to the ICANN Bylaws on the office of the Ombudsman to argue that all matters brought before the Ombudsman "shall be treated as confidential" and the Ombudsman shall "take all reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman". ICANN states that the Ombudsman publishes Annual Reports, in which he/she provides a "consolidated analysis of the year's complaints and resolutions", including "a description of any trends or common elements of complaints received". In sum, ICANN states that making Ombudsman Requests public would violate ICANN Bylaws, and topple the independence and integrity of the Ombudsman.

These are, perhaps, valid reasons to decline our DIDP request. But it is important to investigate ICANN's reasons. The ICANN Board appoints the Ombudsman for 2 year terms, under Article V of ICANN’s Bylaws. As we note in an earlier post, the Ombudsman’s principal function is to receive and dispose of complaints about unfair treatment by the ICANN Board, Staff or constituency. He/she reports to the ICANN Board alone. He/she also reports on the categories of complaints he receives, and statistics regarding decisions in his Annual Reports; no details are forthcoming for stated reasons of confidentiality and privacy. It is clear, therefore, that the Ombudsman receives and disposes of complaints under a procedure that is inadequately transparent.

ICANN argues, however, that for reasons of confidentiality and integrity of the Ombudsman office, ICANN is unable to disclose details regarding Ombudsman complaints, the complainants/respondents and a description of the proceedings (including the decision/resolution). Indeed, ICANN states its "Bylaws and the Ombudsman Framework obligates the Ombudsman to treat all matters brought before him as confidential and 'to take reasonable steps necessary to preserve the privacy of, and to avoid harm to, those parties not involved in the complaint being investigated by the Ombudsman'.” For this reason, ICANN considers that "Disclosing details about the parties involved and the nature of the cases that have been decided by the Ombudsmen would not only compromise the confidentiality of the Ombudsman process but would also violate the ICANN Bylaws and the Ombudsman Framework."

While the privacy of parties both involved and "not involved in the complaint" can be preserved (by redacting names, email addresses and other personal identification), how valid is ICANN's dogged insistence on confidentiality and non-disclosure? Let's look at Article V of ICANN's Bylaws and the Ombudsman Framework both.

Do ICANN Bylaws bind the Ombudsman to Confidentiality?

Under Article V, Section 1(2) of ICANN's Bylaws, the Ombudsman is appointed by the ICANN Board for a 2 year term (renewable). As noted earlier, the Ombudsman's principal function is to “provide an independent internal evaluation of complaints by members of the ICANN community who believe that the ICANN staff, Board or an ICANN constituent body has treated them unfairly” or inappropriately (Art. V, Section 2). The Ombudsman is not a judge; his conflict resolution tools are "negotiation, facilitation, and 'shuttle diplomacy'.

According to Art. V, Section 3(3), the Ombudsman has access to "all necessary information and records from staff and constituent bodies" to evaluate complaints in an informed manner. While the Ombudsman can access these records, he may not "publish if otherwise confidential". When are these records confidential, then? Section 3(3) supplies the answer. The confidentiality obligations are as "imposed by the complainant or any generally applicable confidentiality policies adopted by ICANN". For instance, the complainant can waive its confidentiality by publishing the text of its complaint and the Ombudsman's response to the same (such as the Internet Commerce Association's complaint regarding the Implementation Review Team under the new gTLD program), or a complaint may be publicly available on a listserv. In any event, there is no blanket confidentiality obligation placed on the Ombudsman under ICANN's Bylaws.

Moreover, the Ombudsman also publishes Annual Reports, in which he/she provides a "consolidated analysis of the year's complaints and resolutions", including "a description of any trends or common elements of complaints received". That is, the Ombudsman's Annual Report showcases a graph comparing the increase in the number of complaints, categories of complaints (i.e., whether the complaints fall within or outside of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction), and a brief description of the Ombudsman's scope of resolution and response. The Annual Reports indicate that the mandate of the Ombudsman's office is extremely narrow. In 2014, for instance, 75 out of 467 complaints were within Mr. LaHatte's jurisdiction (page 5), but he notes that his ability to intervene is limited to "failures in procedure". As an input to the ATRT2 Report noted, the Office of the Ombudsman “appears so restrained and contained” (page 53). As the ATRT2 noted, "ICANN needs to reconsider the Ombudsman’s charter and the Office’s role as a symbol of good governance to be further incorporated in transparency processes"; the Office's transparency leaves much to be desired.

But I digress.

The Ombudsman is authorised to make reports on any complaint and its resolution (or lack thereof) to the ICANN Board, and unless the Ombudsman says so in his sole discretion, his reports are to be posted on the website (Art. V, Section 4(4)). The Ombudsman can also report on individual requests, such as Mr. LaHatte's response to a complaint regarding a DIDP denial (cached). Some reports are actually available on the Ombudsman page; the last published report dates back to 2012, though in 2013 and 2014, the Ombudsman dealt with more complaints within his jurisdiction than in 2012 or prior. So ICANN's argument that disclosing the information we ask for in our DIDP Request would violate ICANN Bylaws and the confidentiality of the Ombudsman is misleading.

Does the Ombudsman Framework Prohibit Public Reporting?

So if ICANN Bylaws do not ipso facto bind the Ombudsman's complaint and conflict resolution process to confidentiality, does the Ombudsman Framework do so?

The Ombudsman does indeed have confidentiality obligations under the Ombudsman Framework (page 4). All matters brought before the Ombudsman shall be treated as confidential, and the identities of parties not involved in the complaint are required to be protected. The Ombudsman may reveal the identity of the complainant to the ICANN Board or Staff only to further the resolution of a complaint (which seems fairly obvious); this obligation is extended to ICANN Board and Staff as well.

As the Framework makes crystal clear, the identity of complainants are to be kept confidential. Nothing whatsoever binds the Ombudsman from revealing the stakeholder group or affiliation of the complainants - and these are possibly of more importance. What stakeholders most often receive unfair or inappropriate treatment from ICANN Board, Staff or constituent bodies? Does business suffer more, or do non-commercial users, or indeed, governments? It is good to know what countries the complaints come from (page 4-5), but given ICANN's insistence on its multi-stakeholder model as a gold standard, it is important to know what stakeholders suffer the most in the ICANN system.

In fact, in the first page, the Ombudsman Framework says this: "The Ombudsman may post complaints and resolutions to a dedicated portion of the ICANN website (http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/): (i) in order to promote an understanding of the issues in the ICANN community; (ii) to raise awareness of administrative fairness; and (iii) to allow the community to see the results of similar previous cases. These postings will be done in a generic manner to protect the confidentiality and privilege of communicating with the Office of Ombudsman." But the ICANN website does not, in fact, host records of any Ombudsman complaints or resolutions; it links you only to the Annual Reports and Publications.

As I've written before, the Annual Reports provide no details regarding the nature of each complaint, their origins or resolution, and are useful if the only information we need is bare statistics of the number of complaints received. That is useful, but it's not enough. Given that the Ombudsman Framework does allow complaint/resolution reporting, it is baffling that ICANN's response to our DIDP request chooses to emphasise only the confidentiality obligations, while conveniently leaving out the parts enabling and encouring reporting.

Should ICANN Report the Ombudsman Complaints?

Of course it should. The Ombudsman is aimed at filling an integral gap in the ICANN system - he/she listens to complaints about treatment by the ICANN Board, Staff or constituent bodies. As the discussions surrounding the appeal procedures in the CWG-Names show, and as the ATRT2 recommendations on Reconsideration and Independent Review show, conflict resolution mechanisms are crucial in any environment, not least a multi-stakeholder one. And in an organisation that leaves much desired by way of accountability and transparency, not reporting on complaints against the Board, staff or constituencies seems a tad irresponsible.

If there are privacy concerns regarding the identities of complainants, their personal identifying information can be redacted. Actually, in the complaint form, adding a waiver-of-confidentiality tick-box would solve the problem, allowing the complainant to choose whether to keep his/her complaint unreportable. But the details of the respondents ought to be reported; as the entity responsible and accountable, ICANN should disclose whom complaints have been made against.

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. 5).

[1] See What the Ombudsman can do for you, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact- 2012-02-25-en.

[2] See Annual Reports & Publications, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reports-96-2012- 02-25-en.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1