The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 31 to 45.
If the DIDP Did Its Job
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job
<b></b>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">Over the course of two years, the Centre for Internet and Society sent 28 requests to ICANN under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (DIDP). A part of ICANN’s accountability initiatives, DIDP is “intended to ensure that information contained in documents concerning ICANN's operational activities, and within ICANN's possession, custody, or control, is made available to the public unless there is a compelling reason for confidentiality.”</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">Through the DIDP, any member of the public can request information contained in documents from ICANN. We’ve written about the process <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-2013-i-didp-basics">here</a>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icann2019s-didp">here</a> and <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/peering-behind-the-veil-of-icanns-didp-ii">here</a>. As a civil society group that does research on internet governance related topics, CIS had a variety of questions for ICANN. The 28 DIDP requests we have sent cover a range of subjects: from revenue and financial information, to ICANN’s relationships with its contracted parties, its contractual compliance audits, harassment policies and the diversity of participants in its public forum. We have blogged about each DIDP request where we have summarized ICANN’s responses.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">Here are the DIDP requests we sent in:</p>
<div dir="ltr">
<table><colgroup><col width="147"><col width="137"><col width="152"><col width="119"><col width="135"></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Dec 2014</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Jan/Feb 2015</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Aug/Sept 2015</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Nov 2015</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Apr/May 2016</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings">ICANN meeting expenditure</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-6-revenues-from-gtld-auctions">Revenue from gTLD auction</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-11-netmundial-principles">Implementation of NETmundial principles</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-19-icann2019s-role-in-the-postponement-of-the-iana-transition">IANA transition postponement</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action">Board Governance Committee Reports</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2">Granular revenue statements</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-7-globalisation-advisory-groups">Globalisation Advisory Groups</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues">Raw data - Granular income data</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contracts-a-good-thing">Presumptive renewal of registries</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is">Diversity Analysis</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann">ICANN cyber attacks</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-8-organogram">Organogram</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-13-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registries">Compliance audits - registries</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs">ICANN-RIR relationship</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Compliance audits</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles">Implementation of NETmundial outcome document</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-9-exactly-how-involved-is-icann-in-the-netmundial-initiative">Involvement in NETmundial Initiative</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-14-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registrars">Compliance audits - registrars</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann">Harassment policy</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1">Complaints to ICANN ombudsman</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-10-icann-does-not-know-how-much-each-rir-contributes-to-its-budget">RIR contract fees</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-16-icann-has-no-documentation-on-registrars2019-201cabuse-contacts201d">Registrar abuse contact</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">DIDP statistics *</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-15-what-is-going-on-between-verisign-and-icann">Verisign Contractual violations</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants">gTLD applicant support program </a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-17-how-icann-chooses-their-contractual-compliance-auditors">Contractual auditors</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract">Root Zone Maintenance agreements</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr"><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-18-icann2019s-internal-website-will-stay-internal">Internal website</a></p>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
<td>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p dir="ltr">ICANN’s responses were analyzed and rated between 0-4 based on the amount of information disclosed. The reasons given for the lack of full disclosure were also studied.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr">
<table><colgroup><col width="73"><col width="568"></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr">DIDP response rating</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr">0</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">No relevant information disclosed</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr">1</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Very little information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr">2</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Partial information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr">3</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">Adequate information disclosed; DIDP preconditions and/or other reasons for nondisclosure used.</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p style="text-align: center;" dir="ltr">4</p>
</td>
<td>
<p dir="ltr">All information disclosed</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">ICANN has defined a set of preconditions under which they are not obligated to answer a request. These preconditions are generously used by ICANN to justify their lack of a comprehensive answer. The wording of the policy also allows ICANN to dodge answering a request if it doesn’t have the relevant documents already in its possession. The responses were also classified by the number of times a particular DIDP condition for non-disclosure was invoked. We will see why these weaken ICANN’s accountability initiatives. </p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br /><img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/1o_D1vsv4byFYcXE1BfpcMtIe_ZxSAWwxZ-QMIQ0OlZ3y0UzANNyepK64ktsqNF-HmkIyw1rgnESLv_1PrHMuH3WKRQhnEaLhoghGCU3eWofqhBiBLjbu3Wz6nrmVdAw9GEH-2K2" alt="null" height="303" width="368" /></div>
<p dir="ltr">Of the 28 DIDP requests, only 14% were answered fully, without the use of the DIDP conditions of non-disclosure. Seven out of 28 or 40% of the DIDPs received a 0-rated answer which reflects extremely poorly on the DIDP mechanism itself. Of the 7 responses that received 0-rating, 4 were related to complaints and contractual compliance. We had asked for details on the complaints received by the ombudsman, details on contractual violations by Verisign and abuse contacts maintained by registrars for filing complaints. We received no relevant information.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">We have earlier written about the extensive and broad nature of the 12 conditions of non-disclosure that ICANN uses. These conditions were used in 24 responses out of 28. ICANN was able to dodge from fully answering 85% of the DIDP requests that they got from CIS. This is alarming especially for an organization that claims to be fully transparent and accountable. The conditions for non-disclosure have been listed in <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3sI8lQtXMDTMmJoLXoxazFOVlU/view?usp=sharing">this document</a> and can be referred to while reading the following graph.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">On reading the conditions for non-disclosure, it seems like ICANN can refuse to answer any DIDP request if it so wished. These exclusions are numerous, vaguely worded and contain among them a broad range of information that should legitimately be in the public domain: Correspondence, internal information, information related to ICANN’s relationship with governments, information derived from deliberations among ICANN constituents, information provided to ICANN by private parties and the kicker - information that would be too burdensome for ICANN to collect and disseminate.</p>
<p dir="ltr"><img src="https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/CojQ-raMh1nblMO2TGtEJmrRE3MLKHSqltij-nrTdL4Cx2rzVtwzXZQBYBv0qpqxlZ_e0Ce1St7nnY6dN6dAn6G2VH-93iq2htQRQxmejjs-lXhUWNlGiPo9HpZlS69YbCFKEe7J" alt="null" height="425" width="624" /></p>
<p dir="ltr"> </p>
<p dir="ltr">As we can see from the graph, the most used condition under which ICANN can refuse to answer a DIDP request is F. Predictably, this is the most vaguely worded DIDP condition of the lot: “Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures.” It is up to ICANN to decide what information is confidential with no justification needed or provided for it. ICANN has used this condition 11 times in responding to our 28 requests.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">It is also necessary to pay attention to condition L which allow ICANN to reject “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.” This is perhaps the weakest point in the entire list due its subjective nature. Firstly, on whose standards must this information request be reasonable? If the point of a transparency mechanism is to make sure that information sought by the public is disseminated, should they be allowed to obfuscate information because it is too burdensome to collect? Even if this is fair given the time constraints of the DIDP mechanism, it must not be used as liberally as has been happening. The last sub point is perhaps the most subjective. If a staff member dislikes a particular requestor, this point would justify their refusal to answer a request regardless of its validity. This hardly seems fair or transparent. This condition has been used 9 times in our 28 requests.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">Besides the DIDP non-disclosure conditions, ICANN also has an excuse built into the definition of DIDP. Since it is not obliged to create or summarize documents under the DIDP process, it can simply claim to not have the specific document we request and thus negate its responsibility to our request. This is what ICANN did with one of our requests for raw financial data. For our research, we required raw data from ICANN specifically with regard to its expenditure on staff and board members for their travel and attendance at meetings. As an organization that is answerable to multiple stakeholders including governments and the public, it is justified to expect that they have financial records of such items in a systematic manner. However, we were surprised to learn that ICANN does not in fact have these stored in a manner that they can send as attachments or publish. Instead they directed us to the audited financial reports which did little for our research. However, in response to our later request for granular data on revenue from domain names, ICANN explained that while they do not have such a document in their possession, they would create one. This distinction between the two requests seems arbitrary to us since we consider both to be important to public.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">Nevertheless, there were some interesting outcomes from our experience filing DIDPs. We learnt that there has been no substantive work done to inculcate the NETmundial principles at ICANN, that ICANN has no idea which regional internet registry contributes the most to its budget, and that it does not store (or is not willing to reveal) any raw financial data. These outcomes do not contribute to a sense of confidence in the organization.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">ICANN has an opportunity to reform this particular transparency mechanism at its Workstream 2 discussions. ICANN must make use of this opportunity to listen and work with people who have used the DIDP process in order to make it useful, effective and efficient. To that effect, we have some recommendations from our experience with the DIDP process.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">That ICANN does not currently possess a particular document is not an excuse if it has the ability to create one. In its response to our questions on the IANA transition, ICANN indicated that it does not have the necessary documents as the multi stakeholder body that it set up is the one conducting the transition. This is somewhat justified. However, in response to our request for financial details, ICANN must not be able to give the excuse that it does not have a document in its possession. It and it alone has the ability to create the document and in response to a request from the public, it should.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">ICANN must also revamp its conditions for non-disclosure and make it tighter. It must reduce the number of exclusions to its disclosure policy and make sure that the exclusion is not done arbitrarily. Specifically with respect to condition F, ICANN must clarify how information was classified as confidential and why that is different from everything else on the list of conditions.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">Further, ICANN should not be able to use condition L to outright reject a DIDP request. Instead, there must be a way for the requester and ICANN to come to terms about the request. This could happen by an extension of the 1 month deadline, financial compensation by requester for any expenditure on ICANN’s part to answer the request or by a compromise between the requester and ICANN on the terms of the request. The sub point about requests made “by a vexatious or querulous individual” must be removed from condition L or at least be separated from the condition so that it is clear why the request for disclosure was denied.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">ICANN should also set up a redressal mechanism specific to DIDP. While ICANN has the Reconsideration Requests process to rectify any wrongdoing on the part of staff or board members, this is not adequate to identify whether a DIDP was rejected on justifiable grounds. A separate mechanism that deals only with DIDP requests and wrongful use of the non-disclosure conditions would be helpful. According to the icann bylaws, in addition to Requests for Reconsideration, ICANN has also established an independent third party review of allegations against the board and/or staff members. A similar mechanism solely for reviewing whether ICANN’s refusal to answer a DIDP request is justified would be extremely useful.</p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p dir="ltr">A strong transparency mechanism must make sure that its objective are to provide answers, not to find ways to justify its lack of answers. With this in mind, we hope that the revamp of transparency mechanisms after workstream 2 discussions leads to a better DIDP process than we are used to.</p>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-b9e801b8-28c6-b8f5-d9ad-ac67daa46694"></span></p>
<div dir="ltr"> </div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/if-the-didp-did-its-job</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaIANATransparency and AccountabilityInternet GovernanceICANNIANA TransitionTransparency2016-11-07T12:57:18ZBlog EntryInternet Democratisation: IANA Transition Leaves Much to be Desired
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-internet-democratisation
<b>At best, the IANA transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The article was published in the <a class="external-link" href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/analysis/internet-democratisation-iana-transition-leaves-much-to-be-desired/story-t94hojZjDXqS4LjNSepZlN.html">Hindustan Times</a> on October 6, 2016.</p>
<hr />
<img src="https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/605664440.jpg" alt="PardonSnowden.org" />
<h6> Many suspect Washington’s 2014 announcement of handing over control of the IANA contract to be fuelled by the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance. Source: AFP</h6>
<p style="text-align: justify;">September 30, 2016, marked the expiration of a contract between the US government and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to carry out the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In simpler, acronym-free terms, Washington’s formal oversight over the Internet’s address book has come to an end with the expiration of this contract, with control now being passed on to the “global multistakeholder community”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">ICANN was incorporated in California in 1998 to manage the backbone of the Internet, which included the domain name system (DNS), allocation of IP addresses and root servers. After an agreement with the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), ICANN was tasked with operating the IANA functions, which includes maintenance of the root zone file of the DNS. Over the years Washington has rejected calls to hand over the control of IANA functions, but in March 2014 it announced its intentions to do so and laid down conditions for the handover. Many suspect the driving force behind this announcement to be the outcry following Edward Snowden’s revelations of the extent of US government surveillance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The conditions laid down by the NTIA were met, and the US government accepted the transition proposal, amidst much political pressure and opposition, most notably from Senator Ted Cruz.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This transition is a step in the right direction, but in reality, it changes very little as it fails to address two critical issues: Of jurisdiction and accountability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Jurisdiction is important while considering the resolution of contractual disputes, application of labour and competition laws, disputes regarding ICANN’s decisions, consumer protection, financial transparency, etc. Many of these questions, although not all, will depend on where ICANN is located. ICANN’s new bylaws mention that it will continue to be incorporated in California, and subject to California law just as it was pre-transition. Having the DNS subject to the laws of a single country can only lend to its fragility. ICANN’s US jurisdiction also means that it is not free from the political pressures from the US Senate and in turn, the toxic effect of American party politics that were made visible in the events leading up to September 30.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Another critical issue that the transition does not address is that of ICANN accountability. Post-transition, ICANN’s board will continue to be the ultimate decision-making authority, thus controlling the organisation’s functioning, and ICANN staff will be accountable to the board alone.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To put things in perspective, look at the board’s track record in the recent past. In August, an Independent Review Panel (IRP) found that ICANN’s board had violated ICANN’s own bylaws and had failed to discharge its transparency obligations when it failed to look into staff misbehaviour. Following this, in September, ICANN decided to respond to such allegations of mismanagement, opacity and lack of accountability by launching a review. The review however, would not look into the issues, failures and false claims of the board, but instead focus on the process by which ICANN staff was able to engage in such misbehaviour. This ironically, will be in the form of an internal review that will pass through ICANN staff — the subjects of the investigation — before being taken up to the board.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">At best, the transition is symbolic of Washington’s oversight over ICANN coming to an end. It is also symbolic of the empowerment of the global multistakeholder community. In reality, it fails to do either meaningfully.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-internet-democratisation'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/hindustan-times-october-6-2016-vidushi-marda-internet-democratisation</a>
</p>
No publishervidushiICANNIANAInternet Governance2016-11-03T07:52:37ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #28 - ICANN renews Verisign’s RZM Contract?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract
<b>Our request to ICANN was related to our (mistaken) assumption that Verisign and ICANN had signed an agreement for Root Zone Maintenance and had recently renewed it. In that context we had asked for information such as documents reflecting the decision making process, copy of the current RZM agreement, public comments and an audit report of Verisign’s RZM functions.</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-dc70c719-3ad7-83a2-c0d1-26fed23ada1a">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160502-1-cis-request-02may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN clarified that it has never been party to the RZM agreement which was made between NTIA and Verisign. According to an ICANN-Verisign joint document, the Root Zone Management Systems allows “ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), Verisign, as the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC), as the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf">Root Zone Administrator</a> (RZA).” The only agreement related to this is the one of cooperation between Verisign and the NTIA.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Accordingly, as the role of NTIA is transitioned to the multi-stakeholder community, Verisign and ICANN are working out terms and conditions of their own agreement to facilitate this transition together. In response to NTIA’s request for a proposal for this transition, Verisign and ICANN submitted this document. Besides these, ICANN states that it does not have any documents responsive to our requests.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-dc70c719-3ad9-a0d0-e404-48de850f938b">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160502-1-cis-response-01jun16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><br /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><br /></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T08:10:17ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #27 - On ICANN’s support to new gTLD Applicants
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants
<b>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).</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/non-financial-support">Click for Applicant Support Directory</a></p>
<hr />
<p>We requested ICANN for information about this program. Specifically, we asked them for information on:</p>
<ul>
<li>The number of applicants to the program and the amount received by them;</li>
<li>The basis on which these applicants were selected;</li>
<li>The amount that has been utilized thus far for this program;</li>
<li>Contributions by donors;</li>
<li>What “in kind” support means and includes.</li>
</ul>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-d0a4e7de-3ad0-b071-d564-c2b005d37412">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160426-1-cis-request-26apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The eligibility criteria is listed in the New <a class="external-link" href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assistance-handbook-11jan12-en.pdf">gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook</a> 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.”</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T08:03:18ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #25 - Curbing Sexual Harassment at ICANN
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann
<b>Markus Kummer at Public Forum 2 mentioned that ICANN has standards of behavior regarding sexual harassment that are applicable for its staff.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-public-forum-10mar16-en.pdf">Marrakech Public Forum 2</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In light of that statement, CIS requested ICANN to publish the following information:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Information about the individual or organization conducting ICANN’s sexual harassment training</li>
<li>Materials used during this training</li>
<li>ICANN’s internal sexual harassment policy</li>
</ul>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-fe41cc04-3a6e-cf9f-49f8-133f17ad6466" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-4-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN’s response answered our questions adequately. The organization conducting their sexual harassment training is <a class="external-link" href="http://www.navexglobal.com/en-us">NAVEX Global</a>. 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.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-fe41cc04-3a6f-624f-fe3b-ddb4b40c7729" style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request (and the attached policy document) may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-4-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T06:14:29ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #23 - ICANN does not Know how Diverse its Comment Section Is
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is
<b>While researching ICANN and the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), we came across a diversity analysis report of a public comment section.</b>
<p>See ICG <a class="external-link" href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf">report here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-98241daf-39f3-a4ed-02bf-96954e3e93bc">We requested ICANN for similar reports on the ICANN public comment section. <span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-2-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p><span>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. </span></p>
<p><span>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. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-98241daf-3a5b-f097-254d-8f533cb585a7"><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-2-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-98241daf-3a5c-2285-f58e-b435bb4e9419"><span>https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf <br /></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T05:55:15ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #22 - Reconsideration Requests from Parties affected by ICANN Action
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action
<b>According to ICANN by-laws, ICANN has the responsibility to answer to reconsideration requests filed by those directly affected by its actions.</b>
<p>See ICANN <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#IV">bye-laws here</a></p>
<hr />
<p>The board governance committee must submit an annual report to the board containing the following information (paraphrased):</p>
<ul>
<li>Number and nature of Reconsideration Requests received including an identification of whether they were dismissed, acted upon or are pending.</li>
<li>If pending, the length of time and explanation if they have been pending for more than 90 days.</li>
<li>Explanation of other mechanisms ICANN has made available to ensure its accountability to those <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/reconsideration-en">directly affected by its actions</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-4e14eb60-39ec-c7bd-ff52-31efac77cf04">CIS requested copies of documents containing all this information. <span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-1-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-4e14eb60-39ed-055a-ce62-cc9e39003f22"><span>ICANN surmised that all the information we sought can be found in their annual reports. ICANN linked us to those:</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/annual-reports-2012-02-25-en"><span> </span><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/annual-reports-2012-02-25-en</span></a></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-4e14eb60-39ed-3cfa-7ea6-5a3df710332c"><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-1-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T03:52:01ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #21 - ICANN’s Relationship with the RIRs
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs
<b>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.</b>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-9a337482-39e1-3bf5-987c-39a7275c7fd3" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-3-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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 <a class="external-link" href="http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm">the individual RIRs</a>. 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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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:<br /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>“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 <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">querulous individual</a>.”</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-9a337482-39e4-88ef-f261-ef3d9fad1164">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-3-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T03:42:36ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #20 - Is Presumptive Renewal of Verisign’s Contracts a Good Thing?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contracts-a-good-thing
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">See the base registry agreement <a class="external-link" href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.htm">here</a>.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-eb2fe452-396a-8d7f-0f0f-7f5c6e36a96a">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. <span id="docs-internal-guid-eb2fe452-396a-c7c2-28df-9d7efc6a7e37">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-2-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>What ICANN said</span></span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>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, </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-eb2fe452-396b-5b12-4075-067c0188cd47" style="text-align: justify; "><i><span>“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.” </span></i></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. <br /></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. <br /></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. <br /></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-eb2fe452-396c-6d45-90fa-277d2dbd8c48">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-2-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contracts-a-good-thing'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-20-is-presumptive-renewal-of-verisign2019s-contracts-a-good-thing</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T02:01:59ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #19 - ICANN’s role in the Postponement of the IANA Transition
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-19-icann2019s-role-in-the-postponement-of-the-iana-transition
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition-key-internet-domain-name-functions">See NTIA announcement here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In August 2015, NTIA announced that it would not be technically possible to meet this deadline and extended it by a year. NTIA stated,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-816516c5-3775-475c-1f2f-cfde97e46a00">“<i>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 <a class="external-link" href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition">complete this process</a></i>.”</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-816516c5-3780-2a3c-fb9f-381a3585fb5b" style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-816516c5-377f-e490-8578-5857613384b7">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 </span><a href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/update-iana-transition"><span>this</span></a><span> blogpost. </span></span></p>
<p dir="ltr" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-1-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. <br /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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:</span></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><span>IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG)</span></li>
<li>Cross Community Working Group (CWG-Stewardship)</li>
<li>Consolidated RIR IANA Stewardship Proposal Team (CRISP TEAM)</li>
<li>IANAPLAN Working Group (IANAPLAN WG)</li>
<li>Cross-Community Working</li>
<li>Group (CCWG-Accountability) </li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-816516c5-3782-ddb4-6000-3aee1459369a" style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-1-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><br /></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-19-icann2019s-role-in-the-postponement-of-the-iana-transition'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-19-icann2019s-role-in-the-postponement-of-the-iana-transition</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-29T16:37:04ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #18 - ICANN’s Internal Website will Stay Internal
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-18-icann2019s-internal-website-will-stay-internal
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-6ae20cf4-3723-9313-1ca4-571610febfac">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150901-6-01sep15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. 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 <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">DIDP conditions for non-disclosure</a>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-6ae20cf4-3724-8d54-05ca-866fe5bc62b5">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-6-cis-wiki-01oct15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-18-icann2019s-internal-website-will-stay-internal'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-18-icann2019s-internal-website-will-stay-internal</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-29T14:53:50ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #17 - How ICANN Chooses their Contractual Compliance Auditors
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-17-how-icann-chooses-their-contractual-compliance-auditors
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-88ef1d6f-3472-3cd6-bf11-e5bb7d2ea6a9">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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-88ef1d6f-3472-5ef2-432a-dbb3e446057d">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150901-5-01sep15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>What ICANN said</span></span></h3>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-88ef1d6f-3472-81e4-8a58-7815de9e725d" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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: </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en</span></a></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-88ef1d6f-3472-cda1-dd73-6b12b9aa1fc5" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-88ef1d6f-3473-0cee-aa58-9889a6de22eb" style="text-align: justify; "><span>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 </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/rfps-en"><span>here</span></a><span> after our DIDP request. In addition, the contract between KPMG and ICANN has also not been published. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-88ef1d6f-3473-2c8e-1679-7191963f7ad9" style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-5-cis-auditor-appt-01oct15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-17-how-icann-chooses-their-contractual-compliance-auditors'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-17-how-icann-chooses-their-contractual-compliance-auditors</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-29T02:20:59ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #16 - ICANN has no Documentation on Registrars’ “Abuse Contacts”
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-16-icann-has-no-documentation-on-registrars2019-201cabuse-contacts201d
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-9b05b54d-3465-1c5e-3830-7af0d8e37b19">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150901-4-01sep15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-9b05b54d-3467-44df-1aed-bbe876d6dc71">As for the second item, ICANN gave a familiarly vague answer, linking us to the</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/compliance/notices"><span> Contractual Compliance Complaints</span></a><span> 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 </span><span>formal contractual compliance enforcement process has been initiated </span><span>relating to an abuse complaint and resulted in a breach.”<a href="#ftn1">[1] </a>What about the rest of the complaints received by the registrar?</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>In addition, ICANN refused to publish any communication or documentation of ICANN requesting reports of illegal activity under the DIDP non-disclosure conditions. <br /></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-9b05b54d-3469-bdb4-1603-805eb7dc6a97">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-4-cis-abuse-complaints-01oct15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></span></p>
<hr />
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-9b05b54d-346a-e343-097c-9bedf6f32f17"><a name="ftn1">[1] </a><span>See ICANN response here (Pg 4): https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-4-cis-abuse-complaints-01oct15-en.pdf</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-16-icann-has-no-documentation-on-registrars2019-201cabuse-contacts201d'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-16-icann-has-no-documentation-on-registrars2019-201cabuse-contacts201d</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-29T02:11:52ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #15: What is going on between Verisign and ICANN?
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-15-what-is-going-on-between-verisign-and-icann
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-f679a3d5-345d-67c5-6d95-690f07d56d1f">The DIDP request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-request-20150901-3-01sep15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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: <br /></span></p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><span>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.</span><span> </span></li>
<li><span>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.</span><span> </span></li>
<li><span>Confidential business information and/or internal policies and procedures.<a href="#ftn1">[1]</a></span><span> <br /></span></li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span id="docs-internal-guid-f679a3d5-345f-fcdf-ba09-26b6f74477d8">ICANN’s response to our request can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-3-cis-contractual-violations-verisign-01oct15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="ftn1">[1] </a><span id="docs-internal-guid-f679a3d5-3461-1364-7277-525329280407">See DIDP https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-15-what-is-going-on-between-verisign-and-icann'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-15-what-is-going-on-between-verisign-and-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-29T02:01:06ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #14: Keeping track of ICANN’s contracted parties: Registrars
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-14-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registrars
<b>In September 2016, we filed two separate DIDP requests regarding ICANN’s Contractual Compliance Goals.</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-322e-256d-7606-417c64dfd392">The first one which we have written about here,</span><a href="#ftn1">[1] </a>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:</p>
<ol>
<li>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).</li>
<li>A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.</li>
<li>A list of the registrars to whom such notices were served in the last year.</li>
<li>An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process.</li>
<li>A list of the registrars that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time.</li>
<li>Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.</li>
<li>Documents which identify the registrars who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract.</li>
<li>Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual non-compliance.</li>
<li>A copy of the registrar self-assessment form which is to be submitted to ICANN. </li>
</ol>
<p>The DIDP request filed by Padmini Baruah can be viewed here.</p>
<h3>What ICANN said</h3>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3234-6693-c084-c898ecb92ff6">Information pertinent to item 1 and 3 can be found in the 2014 Contractual Compliance Annual Report here:https://</span><a href="http://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-2014-13feb15-en.pdf"><span>www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-2014-13feb15-en.pdf</span></a><span>. While this report contains detailed information regarding the audit, individual audit reports are subject to the DIDP Defined Conditions for Nondisclosure.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3234-d617-f932-ee71027bdaf6">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:</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/audit-communication-template-04dec15-en.pdf"><span> </span><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/audit-communication-template-04dec15-en.pdf</span></a><span>. As mentioned in an earlier blog post, ICANN set aside USD 0.6 million for the Three Year Audit plan.<a href="#ftn2">[2] </a>(item 4)</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span>According to the Audit FAQ on ICANN website,<a href="#ftn3">[3]</a> <span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-323a-156a-af6f-d315baa30ccd">“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:</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/compliance/notices#notices-2014"><span> </span><span>https://www.icann.org/compliance/notices#notices-2014</span></a><span>. (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.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span>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.”<a href="#ftn4">[4] </a><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3244-56d6-a94a-37347d37616b">The form for the same can be found here: </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#compliance"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approved-with-specs-2013-09-17-en#compliance</span></a></span></span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span><span><span><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3244-91f8-830f-b40c5a82d02a">ICANN’s response to our request can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150901-1-response-20150901-2-cis-ry-rr-audits-01oct15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></span></span></span></span></p>
<hr />
<p><a name="ftn1">[1] </a><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3258-80b4-c7aa-aea9801aceac">To be linked to the first post</span></p>
<p><a name="ftn2">[2] </a><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3258-28cd-a693-d1605b22ce9e">See FY15 budget (pg72): </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-01dec14-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/adopted-opplan-budget-fy15-01dec14-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a name="ftn3">[3] </a><span id="docs-internal-guid-bf51bf89-3257-ded2-6793-607c741261a7">See Audit FAQ: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/faqs-2012-10-31-en</span></p>
<p><a name="ftn4">[4] </a>See CEO certification: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ceo-certification-2014-01-29-en</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-14-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registrars'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-14-keeping-track-of-icann2019s-contracted-parties-registrars</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-28T16:34:27ZBlog Entry