The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 11 to 18.
DIDP Request #6: Revenues from gTLD auctions
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-6-revenues-from-gtld-auctions
<b>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.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Request</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>12 January 2015</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board</p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><strong>Sub: Revenues from gTLD auctions</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> We have observed that information regarding the bids from all other applicants is not available. The revenue information provided to us<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> does not include revenues from new gTLDs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this regard, we request you to provide us with the following information:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(i) How many gTLDs have been sold <i>via</i> the auction process, since its inception?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(ii) What were the starting and winning bids in the ICANN auctions conducted?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(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).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(iv) How are proceeds from the gTLD auction process utilized?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Warm regards,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Lakshmi Venkataraman,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IV Year, NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>for </i>Centre for Internet & Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN Response</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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: <span>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions. The current status of </span><span>auction proceeds and costs are available at </span><span>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds,</span><span> and auction results are at </span><span>https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults. The utilization of proceeds from the auctions is yet to be decided by the ICANN Board:</span><span> “[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.”</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-09feb15-en.pdf"><strong>found here</strong></a>.</span><span style="text-align: justify; "> A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file" style="text-align: justify; "><strong>in this table (Request S. no. 6)</strong></a><span style="text-align: justify; ">.</span></p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See <i>Auction Results</i>, <a href="https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults">https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/auctionresults</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See <i>ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues</i>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-6-revenues-from-gtld-auctions'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-6-revenues-from-gtld-auctions</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNDIDPTransparencyAccountability2015-03-10T10:59:37ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #5: The Ombudsman and ICANN's Misleading Response to Our Request
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1
<b>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.</b>
<div class="page" title="Page 1">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Request</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>26 December 2014</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span>To:<br /> Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board </span></p>
<p><span>Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President </span></p>
<p><span>Mr. Chris LaHatte, Ombudsman, ICANN </span></p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><span><strong>Sub: Details regarding complaints submitted to the ICANN Ombudsman </strong></span></p>
<p><span>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]</span><span> </span><span>We also understand that there are cases that the ICANN ombudsman does not have the authority to address. </span></p>
<p><span>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: </span></p>
<p><span>(i) A compilation of all the cases that have been decided by ICANN ombudsmen in the history of the organization. </span></p>
<p><span>(ii) The details of the parties that are involved in the cases that have been decided by the ombudsmen. </span></p>
<p><span>(iii)A description of the proceedings of the case, along with the party that won in each instance. </span></p>
<p><span>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]</span><span> </span><span>Additionally, we would like to bring to your notice that the link that provides the ombudsman report for the year 2010 does not work.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span>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.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="page" title="Page 2">
<div class="layoutArea">
<div class="column">
<p><span>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. </span></p>
<p><span>Yours sincerely,<br /> Lakshmi Venkataraman<br /> NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, </span><span>for </span><span>Centre for Internet & Society<br /> W: http://cis-india.org</span></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>ICANN Response</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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 "<span>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 "</span><span>a description of any trends or common elements of complaints received". </span><span>In sum, ICANN states that m</span><span>aking Ombudsman Requests public would violate ICANN Bylaws, and topple the independence and integrity of the Ombudsman.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are, perhaps, valid reasons to decline our DIDP request. But it is important to investigate ICANN's reasons. The <span>ICANN Board appoints the Ombudsman for 2 year terms, under </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#V">Article V of ICANN’s Bylaws</a><span>. As we note </span><a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/where-does-icann2019s-money-come-from-we-asked-they-don2019t-know">in an earlier post</a><span>, the Ombudsman’s principal function is to receive and dispose of <span style="text-align: justify; ">complaints about unfair treatment by the ICANN Board, Staff or constituency.</span></span><span> He/she reports to the ICANN Board alone. He/she also </span><span>reports on the categories of complaints he receives, and statistics regarding decisions in his </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reports-96-2012-02-25-en">Annual Reports</a><span>; no details are forthcoming for stated reasons of confidentiality and privacy. </span><span>It is clear, therefore, that the Ombudsman receives and disposes of complaints under a procedure that is inadequately transparent. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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</span><span> "Bylaws and <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ombudsman-framework-26mar09-en.pdf">the Ombudsman Framework</a> 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 "D</span><span>isclosing 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." </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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), h</span><span>ow 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.</span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Do ICANN Bylaws bind the Ombudsman to Confidentiality?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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<span> </span><span>“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 "</span><span>negotiation, facilitation, and 'shuttle diplomacy'. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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 <i>access</i> 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 <span style="text-align: justify; ">any generally applicable confidentiality policies adopted by ICANN". For instance, the complainant can waive its confidentiality by publishing the text of its complaint <span style="text-align: justify; ">and the Ombudsman's response to the same </span>(such as the <a href="http://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-tells-icann-ombudsman-office-its-irt-report-tardy-nonresponsive-and-non-persuasive/">Internet Commerce Association's complaint</a> regarding the Implementation Review Team under the new gTLD program), or a complaint may be publicly <a href="http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/2012-November/010974.html">available on a listserv</a>. In any event, there is no blanket confidentiality obligation placed on the Ombudsman under ICANN's Bylaws.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">Moreover, the Ombudsman also publishes Annual Reports,</span><span style="text-align: justify; "> in which he/she provides a "consolidated analysis of the year's complaints and resolutions", including "</span><span style="text-align: justify; ">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 <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-report-2014-27jan15-en.pdf">within Mr. LaHatte's jurisdiction</a> (page 5), but he notes that his ability to intervene is limited to "failures in procedure". <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-recommendations-31dec13-en.pdf">As an input to the ATRT2 Report noted</a>, the Office of the Ombudsman “appears so restrained and contained” (page 53). As the ATRT2 noted, "</span></span></span><span>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.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-align: justify; ">But I digress.</span></span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span style="text-align: justify; ">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 <i>in his sole discretion</i>, his reports are to be posted on the website (Art. V, Section 4(4)). <span style="text-align: justify; ">The Ombudsman can also report on individual requests, such as </span><a href="https://omblog.icann.org/index.html%3Fp=1015.html" style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. LaHatte's response to a complaint regarding a DIDP denial</a><span style="text-align: justify; "> (cached). </span>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. </span></span><span>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. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Does the Ombudsman Framework Prohibit Public Reporting?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">So if ICANN Bylaws do not <i>ipso facto</i> bind the Ombudsman's complaint and conflict resolution process to confidentiality, does the Ombudsman Framework do so?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Ombudsman does indeed have confidentiality obligations under <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/ombudsman-framework-26mar09-en.pdf" style="text-align: justify; ">the Ombudsman Framework</a> (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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As the Framework makes crystal clear, the <i>identity of complainants</i> 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 <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-report-2014-27jan15-en.pdf">what countries the complaints come from (page 4-5)</a>, 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In fact, in the first page, the Ombudsman Framework says this: "<span><strong>The Ombudsman may post complaints and resolutions to a dedicated portion of the ICANN website</strong> (http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/): (i) <strong>in order to promote an understanding of the issues in the ICANN community</strong>; (ii) to raise awareness of administrative fairness; and (iii) <strong>to allow the community to see the results of similar previous cases</strong>. These postings will be done in a <strong>generic manner</strong> 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. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>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 <i>number of complaints received</i>. That is useful, but it's not enough. Given that the Ombudsman Framework <i>does</i> 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. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Should ICANN Report the Ombudsman Complaints?</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">If there are privacy concerns regarding the identities of complainants, their personal identifying information can be redacted. Actually, <a href="https://omb.icann.org/portal/complaint.php">in the complaint form</a>, 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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-ombudsman-response-27jan15-en.pdf"><b>found here</b></a>. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"><strong>in this table (Request S. no. 5)</strong></a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>[1] </span><span><i>See</i> </span><span>What the Ombudsman can do for you</span><span>, </span><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/contact- 2012-02-25-en</span><span>.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>[2] <i>See</i> Annual Reports & Publications, https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/reports-96-2012- 02-25-en.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-5-the-ombudsman-and-icanns-misleading-response-to-our-request-1</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNDIDPTransparencyAccountability2015-03-06T11:11:31ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #4: ICANN and the NETmundial Principles
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles
<b>CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of ICANN's implementation of the NETmundial Principles that it has endorsed widely and publicly. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Request</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>27 December 2014</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer</p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><strong>Sub: Details of implementation by and within ICANN of the NETmundial Outcome Document (April ‘14)</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We express our appreciation at ICANN’s prompt acknowledgement of our previous DIDP request, and await the information. We would, in the meanwhile, request information regarding ICANN’s internal measures to implement the NETmundial Outcome Document.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a post titled <i>Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial,</i><a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> Mr. Chehade emphasized the imperative to carry forward the NETmundial principles to fruition. In nearly every public statement, Mr. Chehade and other ICANN representatives have spoken in praise and support of NETmundial and its Outcome Document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">But in the absence of binding value to them, self-regulation and organizational initiatives pave the way to adopt them. There must be concrete action to implement the Principles. In this regard, we request information about mechanisms or any other changes afoot within ICANN, implemented internally in recognition of the NETmundial Principles.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the IGF in Istanbul, when CIS’ Sunil Abraham raised this query,<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> Mr. Chehade responded that mechanisms ought to and will be undertaken jointly and in collaboration with other organisations. However, institutional improvements are intra-organisational as well, and require changes <i>within </i>ICANN. An example would be the suggestions to strengthen the IGF, increase its term, and provide financial support (some of which are being achieved, though ICANN’s financial contribution to IGFSA is incongruous in comparison to its financial involvement in the NETmundial Initiative).<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">From ICANN, we have seen consistent championing of the controversial NETmundial Initiative,<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> and contribution to the IGF Support Association.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> There are also mechanisms instituted for IANA Stewardship Transition and Enhancing ICANN Accountability,<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> as responses to the NTIA’s announcement to not renew the IANA functions contract and related concerns of accountability.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition to the above, we would like to know what ICANN has done to implement the NETmundial Principles, internally and proactively.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Warm regards,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet & Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN Response</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN's response to the above request disappointingly linked to the very same blogpost we note in our request, <i>Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial</i>. Following this, ICANN points us to their involvement in the NETmundial Initiative. On the question of internal implementation, ICANN's response is defensive, to say the least. "ICANN is not the home for the implementation of the NETmundial Principles", they say. In any event, ICANN defends that it already implements the NETmundial Principles in its functioning, a response that comes as a surprise to us. "<span>Many of the NETmundial Principles are high-level statements that permeate through the </span><span>work of any entity – particularly a multistakeholder entity like ICANN – that is interested </span><span>in the upholding of the inclusive, multistakeholder process within the Internet governance </span><span>framework", notes ICANN's response. Needless to say, ICANN's response falls short of responding to our queries. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Finally, ICANN notes that our request is beyond the scope of the DIDP, as it does not relate to ICANN's operational activities. Notwithstanding that our query does in fact seek ICANN's operationalisation of the NETmundial Principles, we are now confused as to where to go to seek this information from ICANN. If the DIDP is not the effective transparency tool it is aimed to be, who in ICANN can provide answers to these questions?</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN's response may be <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-netmundial-response-27jan15-en.pdf"><strong>found here</strong></a>. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"><strong>in this table (Request S. no. 4)</strong></a>.</span></p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See <i>NETmundial Multi-stakeholder Statement</i>, <a href="http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf">http://netmundial.br/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NETmundial-Multistakeholder-Document.pdf</a>. <i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See Chehade, <i>Turning Talk Into Action After NETmundial</i>, <a href="http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/turning-talk-into-action-after-netmundial/">http://blog.icann.org/2014/05/turning-talk-into-action-after-netmundial/</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> See <i>ICANN Open Forum</i>, 9<sup>th</sup> IGF 2014 (Istanbul, Turkey), <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cio31nsqK_A">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cio31nsqK_A</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> See McCarthy, <i>I’m Begging You To Join</i>, The Register (12 December 2014), <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/12/12/im_begging_you_to_join_netmundial_initiative_gets_desperate/</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> See <i>ICANN Donates $50k to Internet Governance Forum Support Association</i>, <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-12-18-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-12-18-en</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> See <i>NTIA IANA Functions’ Stewardship Transition & Enhancing ICANN Accountability Processes</i>, <a href="https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability">https://www.icann.org/stewardship-accountability</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-4-icann-and-the-netmundial-principles</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNDIDPTransparencyAccountability2015-03-05T08:28:44ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #3: Cyber-attacks on ICANN
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann
<b>CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of cyber-attacks on ICANN, and ICANN's internal and external responses to the same. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Request</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>24 December 2014</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Steve Crocker, Chairman of the Board</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Fadi Chehade, CEO and President</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Geoff Bickers, Team Lead, ICANN Computer Incident Response Team (CIRT) & Director of Security Operations</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. John Crain, Chief Security, Stability and Resiliency Officer</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Members of the ICANN-CIRT & ICANN Security Team</p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><strong>Sub: Details of cyber-attacks on ICANN</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We understand that ICANN recently suffered a spear-phishing attack that compromised contact details of several ICANN staff, including their email addresses; these credentials were used to gain access to ICANN’s Centralized Zone Data System (CZDS).<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> We are glad to note that ICANN’s critical functions and IANA-related systems were not affected.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The incident has, however, raised concerns of the security of ICANN’s systems. In order to understand when, in the past, ICANN has suffered similar security breaches, we request details of all cyber-attacks suffered or thought/suspected to have been suffered by ICANN (and for which, therefore, investigation was carried out within and outside ICANN), from 1999 till date. This includes, naturally, the recent spear-phishing attack.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We request information regarding, <i>inter alia</i>,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(1) the date and nature of all attacks, as well as which ICANN systems were compromised,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(2) actions taken internally by ICANN upon being notified of the attacks,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(3) what departments or members of staff are responsible for security and their role in the event of cyber-attacks,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(4) the role and responsibility of the ICANN-CIRT in responding to cyber-attacks (and when policies or manuals exist for the same; if so, please share them),</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(5) what entities external to ICANN are involved in the identification and investigation of cyber-attacks on ICANN (for instance, are the police in the jurisdiction notified and do they investigate? If so, we request copies of complaints or information reports),</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(6) whether and when culprits behind the ICANN cyber-attacks were identified, and</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(7) what actions were subsequently taken by ICANN (ex: liability of ICANN staff for security breaches should such a finding be made, lawsuits or complaints against perpetrators of attacks, etc.).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Finally, we also request information on the role of the ICANN Board and/or community in the event of such cyber-attacks on ICANN. Also, when was the ICANN-CIRT set up and how many incidents has it handled since its existence? Do there exist contingency procedures in the event of compromise of IANA systems (and if so, what)?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Warm regards,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet & Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN Response</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN responded to our request by noting that it is vague and broad in both time and scope. In response, ICANN has provided information regarding certain cyber-incidents already in the public domain, while noting that the term "cyber-attack" is both wide and vague. While the information provided is undoubtedly useful, it is anecdotal at best, and does not provide a complete picture of ICANN's history of vulnerability to cyber-attacks or cyber-incidents, or the manner of its internal response to such incidents, or of the involvement of external law enforcement agencies or CIRTs in combating cyber-incidents on ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN's response may be <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-23jan15-en.pdf"><b>found here</b></a>. A short summary our request and ICANN's response may be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"><b>in this table (Request S. no. 3)</b></a>.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See<i> ICANN targeted in spear-phishing attack</i>, <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-16-en">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2014-12-16-en</a>. <i> </i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See <i>IANA Systems not compromised</i>, <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-19-en">https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-12-19-en</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-3-cyber-attacks-on-icann</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNDIDPTransparencyAccountability2015-03-05T08:16:26ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #2: Granular Revenue/Income Statements from ICANN
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2
<b>CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking current and historical details of ICANN's income/revenue from its various sources. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS Request</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span style="text-decoration: underline;">22 December 2014</span><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><strong>Sub: Request for granular income/revenue statements of ICANN from 1999-2014</strong><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Earlier this month, on 3 December 2014, Mr. Samiran Gupta presented CIS with detailed and granular information regarding ICANN’s domain names income and revenues for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014. This was in response to several requests made over a few months. The information we received is available on our website.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The information mentioned above was, <i>inter alia</i>, extremely helpful in triangulating ICANN’s reported revenues, despite and in addition to certain inconsistencies between the Annual Report (FY14) and the information provided to us.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We recognize that ICANN makes public its current and historical financial information to a certain extent. Specifically, its Operating Plan and Budget, Audited Financial Statements, Annual Reports, Federal and State Tax Filings, Board Compensation Report and ccTLD Contributions Report are available on the website.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a><span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">However, a detailed report of ICANN’s income or revenue statement, listing all vendors and customers, is not available on ICANN’s website. Our research on accountability and transparency mechanisms in Internet governance, specifically of ICANN, requires information in such granularity. <strong>We request, therefore, historical data re: income and revenue from domain names (1999-2014), in a manner as detailed and granular as the information referenced in FN[1]</strong>. We would appreciate if such a report lists all legal entities and individuals who contribute to ICANN’s domain names income/ revenue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.<span> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Warm regards,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet & Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN Response</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN's response to CIS's request can be <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf"><strong>found here</strong></a>. A short summary of our request and ICANN's response may be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"><strong>in this table (Request S. no. 2)</strong></a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See <i>ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues</i>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See <i>Historical Financial Information for ICANN</i>, <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/historical-2012-02-25-en">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/historical-2012-02-25-en</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNDIDPTransparencyAccountability2015-03-05T08:07:02ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #1: ICANN's Expenditures on "Travel & Meetings"
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings
<b>CIS sent ICANN a request under its Documentary Information Disclosure Policy, seeking details of expenditure by ICANN at its Meetings. CIS' request and ICANN's response are detailed below. </b>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; "></h2>
<h2 style="text-align: justify; ">CIS' Request</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>18 December 2014</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Cherine Chalaby, Chair, Finance Committee of the Board</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Xavier Calvez, Chief Financial Officer</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Mr. Samiran Gupta, ICANN India</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All other members of Staff involved in accounting and financial tasks</p>
<p style="text-align: center; "><strong>Sub: Request for itemized details of expenditure by ICANN at its Meetings</strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We would like to thank Mr. Calvez and Mr. Gupta for providing information regarding ICANN’s domain name revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014.<a href="#_ftn1">[1]</a> We would like to request further information through the DIDP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the Audited Financial Statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2014, the “statements of activities” provides Total Expenses (for ICANN and New gTLD) as USD 124,400,000.<a href="#_ftn2">[2]</a> For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2013, the Total Expenses (ICANN and New gTLD) noted is USD 150,362,000.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the statement, this covers expenses for Personnel, Travel and meetings, Professional services and Administration. Quarterly Reports note that the head “Travel and meetings” includes community support requests.<a href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> In addition to these heads, Quarterly Reports include “Bad debt expenses” and “Depreciation expenses”. The manner of accounting for these is explained in <span>Note 2</span> to the Notes to Financial Statements.<a href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> Note 2 explains that the expenses statement is prepared by “functional allocation of expenses” to identifiable programs or support services, or otherwise by methods determined by the management.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For the purposes of our research into normative and practised transparency and accountability in Internet governance, we request, to begin with, <i>current and historical</i> information regarding itemized, detailed expenses under the head “Travel and meetings”. We request this information from 1999 till 2014. We request that such information be categorized and sub-categorised as follows:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Total and Individual Expenses for each meeting (categorised by meeting and year):</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>1. Total and individual expenses for ICANN staff (differentiated by department and name of each individual attending the event, including dates/duration of attendance);</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Also broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Each ICANN staff member who attended the event to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">2. <span>Total and individual expenses for members of ICANN Board (listed by each Board member and dates/duration of attendance);</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Each Board member to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>3. Total and individual expenses for members of ICANN constituencies (ALAC, ATRT, ccNSO, GAC, GNSO, etc.)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>4. Total and individual expenses for ICANN fellows</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their region and stakeholder affiliation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">5. <span>Total and individual expenses incurred for any other ICANN affiliate or liaison (ISOC, IETF, IAB, etc.)</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their affiliation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">6. <span>Total and individual expenses incurred for any other person, whether or not directly affiliated with ICANN</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Broken down into each individual expense (flights, accommodation, per diem or separate local transport, food and other expenses).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">- Each attendee for whom ICANN covered expenses to be named, including their affiliation.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Please note that we request the above-detailed information for ICANN meetings, and also other meetings for which ICANN may provide financial support (for instance, CWG-Stewardship or CWG-Accountability). We request, as a preliminary matter, a list of </span><i>all meetings</i><span> to which ICANN provides and has, in the past, provided financial support (1999-2014).</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">We note that some information of this nature is available in the Travel Support Reports.<a href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> However, the Travel Support Reports are available only from 2008 (Cairo meeting), and are not available for ICANN48 to ICANN51. Further, the Travel Support Reports do not exhibit the level of granularity necessary for research and scrutiny. As explained above, we request granular information for all meetings.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In our view, providing such information will not violate any individual or corporate rights of ICANN, its Staff, Board, Affiliates/Liaisons or any other individual. Public corporations and even private organisations performing public functions may be subjected to or accept an increased level of transparency and accountability. We believe this is of especial importance to ICANN, as it is involved in a process to enhance its accountability, intrinsically related to IANA Stewardship Transition. We expressed similar views in our initial comment to “Enhancing ICANN Accountability”.<a href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Increased transparency from ICANN may also address accountability concerns present across stakeholder-groups both within and outside ICANN.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">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.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thank you very much.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Warm regards,</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Geetha Hariharan</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Internet & Society</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">W: <a href="http://cis-india.org">http://cis-india.org</a></p>
<p> </p>
<h2>ICANN's Response</h2>
<p>ICANN responded to the above request for information within the stipulated time of 30 days. <strong><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-17jan15-en.pdf">ICANN’s response is here</a></strong>. A short summary of CIS's request and ICANN's response can be found <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/table-of-cis-didp-requests/at_download/file"><strong>in this table (Request S. no. 1)</strong></a>.</p>
<p> </p>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<p><a href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> See <i>ICANN reveals hitherto undisclosed details of domain names revenues</i>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> See <i>ICANN Financial Statements As of and For the years ended June 30, 2014 and 2013</i>, pages 7, 19-20, <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/financial-report-fye-30jun14-en.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> For instance, see <i>ICANN FY14 Financial Package: For the nine months ending March 2014</i>, pages 2-5, <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/package-fy14-31mar14-en.pdf">https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/package-fy14-31mar14-en.pdf</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> <i>Supra</i> note 1, page 14.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> See Community Travel Support, <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en#reports">https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/travel-support-2012-02-25-en#reports</a>.</p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> See CIS Comments on Enhancing ICANN Accountability, <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability">http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-comments-enhancing-icann-accountability</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-1-icanns-expenditures-on-travel-meetings</a>
</p>
No publishergeethaICANNDIDPTransparencyAccountability2015-03-05T08:00:36ZBlog EntryDeitY says 143 URLs have been Blocked in 2015; Procedure for Blocking Content Remains Opaque and in Urgent Need of Transparency Measures
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015
<b>Across India on 30 December 2014, following an order issued by the Department of Telecom (DOT), Internet Service Providers (ISPs) blocked 32 websites including Vimeo, Dailymotion, GitHub and Pastebin.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In February 2015, the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) requested the Department of Electronics and Information Technology (DeitY) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) to provide information clarifying the procedures for blocking in India. We have received a response from DeitY which may be <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/response-deity.clarifying-procedures-for-blocking.pdf" class="external-link">seen here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In this post, I shall elaborate on this response from DeitY and highlight some of the accountability and transparency measures that the procedure needs. To stress the urgency of reform, I shall also touch upon two recent developments—the response from Ministry of Communication to questions raised in Parliament on the blocking procedures and the Supreme Court (SC) judgment in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Section 69A and the Blocking Rules</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Section 69A of the Information Technology Act, 2008 (S69A hereinafter) grants powers to the central government to issue directions for blocking of access to any information through any computer resource. In other words, it allows the government to block any websites under certain grounds. The Government has notified rules laying down the procedure for blocking access online under the Procedure and Safeguards for Blocking for Access of Information by Public Rules, 2009 (Rules, 2009 hereinafter). CIS has produced a poster explaining the blocking procedure (<a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/blocking-websites.pdf/at_download/file">download PDF</a>, 2.037MB).</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">There are <em>three key aspects</em> of the blocking rules that need to be kept under consideration:</p>
<h3 align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Officers and committees handling requests</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Designated Officer (DO)</strong> – Appointed by the Central government, officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary.<br /><strong>Nodal Officer (NO)</strong> – Appointed by organizations including Ministries or Departments of the State governments and Union Territories and any agency of the Central Government. <br /><strong>Intermediary contact</strong>–Appointed by every intermediary to receive and handle blocking directions from the DO.<br /><strong>Committee for Examination of Request (CER)</strong> – The request along with printed sample of alleged offending information is examined by the CER—committee with the DO serving as the Chairperson and representatives from Ministry of Law and Justice; Ministry of Home Affairs; Ministry of Information and Broadcasting and representative from the Indian Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT-In). The CER is responsible for examining each blocking request and makes recommendations including revoking blocking orders to the DO, which are taken into consideration for final approval of request for blocking by the Secretary, DOT. <br /><strong>Review Committee (RC) </strong>– Constituted under rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1951, the RC includes the Cabinet Secretary, Secretary to the Government of India (Legal Affairs) and Secretary (Department of Telecom). The RC is mandated to meet at least once in 2 months and record its findings and has to validate that directions issued are in compliance with S69A(1).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;">Provisions outlining the procedure for blocking</h3>
<p>Rules 6, 9 and 10 create three distinct blocking procedures, which must commence within 7 days of the DO receiving the request.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">a) Rule 6 lays out the first procedure, under which any person may approach the NO and request blocking, alternatively, the NO may also raise a blocking request. After the NO of the approached Ministry or Department of the State governments and Union Territories and/or any agency of the Central Government, is satisfied of the validity of the request they forward it to the DO. Requests when not sent through the NO of any organization, must be approved by Chief Secretary of the State or Union Territory or the Advisor to the Administrator of the Union Territory, before being sent to the DO.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The DO upon receiving the request places, must acknowledge receipt within 24 four hours and places the request along with printed copy of alleged information for validation by the CER. The DO also, must make reasonable efforts to identify the person or intermediary hosting the information, and having identified them issue a notice asking them to appear and submit their reply and clarifications before the committee at a specified date and time, within forty eight hours of the receipt of notice.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Foreign entities hosting the information are also informed and the CER gives it recommendations after hearing from the intermediary or the person has clarified their position and even if there is no representation by the same and after examining if the request falls within the scope outlined under S69A(1). The blocking directions are issued by the Secretary (DeitY), after the DO forwards the request and the CER recommendations. If approval is granted the DO directs the relevant intermediary or person to block the alleged information.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">b) Rule 9 outlines a procedure wherein, under emergency circumstances, and after the DO has established the necessity and expediency to block alleged information submits recommendations in writing to the Secretary, DeitY. The Secretary, upon being satisfied by the justification for, and necessity of, and expediency to block information may issue an blocking directions as an interim measure and must record the reasons for doing so in writing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Under such circumstances, the intermediary and person hosting information is not given the opportunity of a hearing. Nevertheless, the DO is required to place the request before the CER within forty eight hours of issuing of directions for interim blocking. Only upon receiving the final recommendations from the committee can the Secretary pass a final order approving the request. If the request for blocking is not approved then the interim order passed earlier is revoked, and the intermediary or identified person should be directed to unblock the information for public access.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;" class="western">c) Rule 10 outlines the process when an order is issued by the courts in India. The DO upon receipt of the court order for blocking of information submits it to the Secretary, DeitY and initiates action as directed by the courts.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify;" class="western">Confidentiality clause</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Rule 16 mandates confidentiality regarding all requests and actions taken thereof, which renders any requests received by the NO and the DO, recommendations made by the DO or the CER and any written reasons for blocking or revoking blocking requests outside the purview of public scrutiny. More detail on the officers and committees that enforce the blocking rules and procedure can be found <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/is-india2019s-website-blocking-law-constitutional-2013-i-law-procedure">here</a>.</p>
<h2>Response on blocking from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The response to our RTI from E-Security and Cyber Law Group is timely, given the recent clarification from the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology to a number of questions, raised by parliamentarian Shri Avinash Pande in the Rajya Sabha. The questions had been raised in reference to the Emergency blocking order under IT Act, the current status of the Central Monitoring System, Data Privacy law and Net Neutrality. The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG), National Law University New Delhi have extracted a set of 6 questions and you can read the full article <a href="https://ccgnludelhi.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/governments-response-to-fundamental-questions-regarding-the-internet-in-india/">here</a>.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The governments response as quoted by CCG, clarifies under rule 9—the Government has issued directions for emergency blocking of <em>a total number of 216 URLs from 1st January, 2014 till date </em>and that <em>a total of 255 URLs were blocked in 2014 and no URLs has been blocked in 2015 (till 31 March 2015)</em> under S69A through the Committee constituted under the rules therein. Further, a total of 2091 URLs and 143 URLs were blocked in order to comply with the directions of the competent courts of India in 2014 and 2015 (till 31 March 2015) respectively. The government also clarified that the CER, had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1<sup>st</sup><sup> </sup>January 2014 upto till date and so far, two orders have been issued to revoke 251 blocked URLs from 1st January 2014 till date. Besides, CERT-In received requests for blocking of objectionable content from individuals and organisations, and these were forwarded to the concerned websites for appropriate action, however the response did not specify the number of requests.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We have prepared a table explaining the information released by the government and to highlight the inconsistency in their response.</p>
<table class="grid listing">
<colgroup> <col width="331"> <col width="90"> <col width="91"> <col width="119"> </colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td rowspan="2">
<p align="LEFT"><strong>Applicable rule and procedure outlined under the Blocking Rules</strong></p>
</td>
<td colspan="3">
<p align="CENTER"><strong>Number of websites</strong></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2014</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>2015</em></p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER"><em>Total</em></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 6 - Blocking requests from NO and others</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">None</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">255</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 9 - Blocking under emergency circumstances</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">216</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Rule 10 - Blocking orders from Court</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2091</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">143</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">2234</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Requests from individuals and orgs forwarded to CERT-In</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Recommendations to not block by CER</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">19</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p align="LEFT">Number of blocking requests revoked</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">-</p>
</td>
<td>
<p align="CENTER">251</p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p>In a <a href="http://sflc.in/deity-says-2341-urls-were-blocked-in-2014-refuses-to-reveal-more/">response </a>to an RTI filed by the Software Freedom Law Centre, DeitY said that 708 URLs were blocked in 2012, 1,349 URLs in 2013, and 2,341 URLs in 2014.</p>
<h2>Shreya Singhal v. Union of India</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In its recent judgment, the SC of India upheld the constitutionality of 69A, stating that it was a narrowly-drawn provision with adequate safeguards. The constitutional challenge on behalf of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) considered the manner in which the blocking is done and the arguments focused on the secrecy present in blocking.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rules may indicate that there is a requirement to identify and contact the originator of information, though as an expert <a href="http://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/but-what-about-section-69a/">has pointed out</a>, there is no evidence of this in practice. The court has stressed the importance of a written order so that writ petitions may be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. In doing so, the court seems to have assumed that the originator or intermediary is informed, and therefore held the view that any procedural inconsistencies may be challenged through writ petitions. However, this recourse is rendered ineffective not only due to procedural constraints, but also because of the confidentiality clause. The opaqueness through rule 16 severely reigns in the recourse that may be given to the originator and the intermediary. While the court notes that rule 16 requiring confidentality was argued to be unconstitutional, it does not state its opinion on this question in the judgment. One expert, holds the <a href="https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/the-supreme-courts-it-act-judgment-and-secret-blocking/">view</a> that this, by implication, requires that requests cannot be confidential. However, such a reading down of rule 16 is yet to be tested.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, Sunil Abraham has <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/economic-and-political-weekly-sunil-abraham-april-11-2015-shreya-singhal-and-66a">pointed</a> out, “block orders are unevenly implemented by ISPs making it impossible for anyone to independently monitor and reach a conclusion whether an internet resource is inaccessible as a result of a S69A block order or due to a network anomaly.” As there are no comprehensive list of blocked websites or of the legal orders through which they are blocked exists, the public has to rely on media reports and filing RTI requests to understand the censorship regime in India. CIS has previously <a href="http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/analysing-blocked-sites-riots-communalism">analysed</a> the leaked block lists and lists received as responses to RTI requests which have revealed that the block orders are full of errors and blocking of entire platforms and not just specific links has taken place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">While the state has the power of blocking content, doing so in secrecy and without judical scrutiny, mark deficiencies that remain in the procedure outlined under the provisions of the blocking rules . The Court could read down rule 16 except for a really narrow set of exceptions, and in not doing so, perhaps has overlooked the opportunities for reform in the existing system. The blocking of 32 websites, is an example of the opaqueness of the system of blocking orders, and where the safeguards assumed by the SC are often not observed such as there being no access to the recommendations that were made by the CER, or towards the revocation of the blocking orders subsequently. CIS filed the RTI to try and understand the grounds for blocking and related procedures and the response has thrown up some issues that must need urgent attention.</p>
<h2>Response to RTI filed by CIS</h2>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Our first question sought clarification on the websites blocked on 30<sup>th</sup><sup> </sup>December 2014 and the response received from DeitY, E-Security and Cyber Law Group reveals that the websites had been blocked as “they were being used to post information related to ISIS using the resources provided by these websites”. The response also clarifies that the directions to block were issued on <em>18-12-2014 and as of 09-01-2015</em>, after obtaining an undertaking from website owners, stating their compliance with the Government and Indian laws, the sites were unblocked.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">It is not clear if ATS, Mumbai had been intercepting communication or if someone reported these websites. If the ATS was indeed intercepting communication, then as per the rules, the RC should be informed and their recommendations sought. It is unclear, if this was the case and the response evokes the confidentiality clause under rule 16 for not divulging further details. Based on our reading of the rules, court orders should be accessible to the public and without copies of requests and complaints received and knowledge of which organization raised them, there can be no appeal or recourse available to the intermediary or even the general public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">We also asked for a list of all requests for blocking of information that had been received by the DO between January 2013 and January 2015, including the copies of all files that had accepted or rejected. We also specifically, asked for a list of requests under rule 9. The response from DeitY stated that since January 1, 2015 to March 31, 2015 directions to block 143 URLs had been issued based on court orders. The response completely overlooks our request for information, covering the 2 year time period. It also does not cover all types of blocking orders under rule 6 and rule 9, nor the requests that are forwarded to CERT-In, as we have gauged from the ministry's response to the Parliament. Contrary to the SC's assumption of contacting the orginator of information, it is also clear from DeitY's response that only the websites had been contacted and the letter states that the “websites replied only after blocking of objectionable content”. </p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Further, seeking clarification on the functioning of the CER, we asked for the recent composition of members and the dates and copies of the minutes of all meetings including copies of the recommendations made by them. The response merely quotes rule 7 as the reference for the composition and does not provide any names or other details. We ascertain that as per the DeitY website Shri B.J. Srinath, Scientist-G/GC is the appointed Designated Officer, however this needs confirmation. While we are already aware of the structure of the CER which representatives and appointed public officers are guiding the examination of requests remains unclear. Presently, there are 3 Joint Secretaries appointed under the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Home Ministry has appointed 19, while 3 are appointed under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. Further, it is not clear which grade of scientist would be appointed to this committee from CERT-In as the rules do not specify this. While the government has clarified in their answer to Parliament that the committee had recommended not to block 19 URLs in the meetings held between 1st January 2014 to till date, it is remains unclear who is taking these decisions to block and revoke blocked URLs. The response from DeitY specifies that the CER has met six times between 2014 and March 2015, however stops short on sharing any further information or copies of files on complaints and recommendations of the CER, citing rule 16.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Finally, answering our question on the composition of the RC the letter merely highlights the provision providing for the composition under 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951. The response clarifies that so far, the RC has met once on 7th December, 2013 under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary, Department of Legal Affaits and Secretary, DOT. Our request for minutes of meetings and copies of orders and findings of the RC is denied by simply stating that “minutes are not available”. Under 419A, any directions for interception of any message or class of messages under sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 issued by the competent authority shall contain reasons for such direction and a copy of such order shall be forwarded to the concerned RC within a period of seven working days. Given that the RC has met just once since 2013, it is unclear if the RC is not functioning or if the interception of messages is being guided through other procedures. Further, we do not yet know details or have any records of revocation orders or notices sent to intermediary contacts. This restricts the citizens’ right to receive information and DeitY should work to make these available for the public.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">Given the response to our RTI, the Ministry's response to Parliament and the SC judgment we recommend the following steps be taken by the DeitY to ensure that we create a procedure that is just, accountable and follows the rule of law.</p>
<p align="JUSTIFY" class="western">The revocation of rule 16 needs urgent clarification for two reasons:</p>
<ol>
<li>Under Section 22 of the RTI Act provisions thereof, override all conflicting provisions in any other legislation.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In upholding the constitutionality of S69A the SC cites the requirement of reasons behind blocking orders to be recorded in writing, so that they may be challenged by means of writ petitions filed under <a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">A</a><a href="http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1712542/">rticle 226</a> of the Constitution of India.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">If the blocking orders or the meetings of the CER and RC that consider the reasons in the orders are to remain shrouded in secrecy and unavailable through RTI requests, filing writ petitions challenging these decisions will not be possible, rendering this very important safeguard for the protection of online free speech and expression infructuous. In summation, the need for comprehensive legislative reform remains in the blocking procedures and the government should act to address the pressing need for transparency and accountability. Not only does opacity curtial the strengths of democracy it also impedes good governance. We have filed an RTI seeking a comprehensive account of the blocking procedure, functioning of committees from 2009-2015 and we shall publish any information that we may receive.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/deity-says-143-urls-blocked-in-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherjyotiCensorshipFreedom of Speech and ExpressionRTIIntermediary LiabilityAccountabilityFeatured69AInternet GovernanceChilling EffectTransparencyHomepageBlocking2015-04-30T07:37:40ZBlog EntryCIS’ Efforts Towards Greater Financial Disclosure by ICANN
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann
<b>CIS has been working towards enhancing transparency and accountability at ICANN since 2014. While initial efforts have resulted in ICANN revealing its sources of income in a granular fashion in 2015, we are yet to see this level of transparency become a default approach within ICANN. Here, Padma Venkataraman chronologically maps CIS’ efforts at enhancing financial transparency and accountability at ICANN, while providing an outline of what remains to be done. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>With the $135 million sale of .web,<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1"><sup><span>[1]</span></sup></a> the much protested renewal of the .net agreement<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2"><sup><span>[2]</span></sup></a> and the continued annual increase in domain name registrations,<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3"><sup><span>[3]</span></sup></a> among other things, it is no surprise that there are still transparency and accountability concerns within the ICANN Community. CIS, as part of its efforts to examine the functioning of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms, has filed many DIDP requests till date, in a bid for greater transparency of the organisation’s sources of revenues.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2014</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2015</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2017</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>-----</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>1.Efforts towards disclosure of revenue break-up by ICANN</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2014</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In 2014, CIS’ Sunil Abraham demanded greater financial transparency of ICANN at both the Asia Pacific IGF and the ICANN Open Forum at the IGF. Later that year, CIS was provided with a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue for the financial year 2014, including payments from registries, registrars, sponsors, among others, by ICANN India Head Mr. Samiran Gupta.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4"><sup><span>[4]</span></sup></a> This was a big step for CIS and the Internet community, as before this, no details on granular income had ever been publicly divulged by ICANN on request.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>However, as no details of historical revenue had been provided, CIS filed a DIDP request in December 2014, seeking financial disclosure of revenues for the years 1999 to 2014, in a detailed manner - similar to the 2014 report that had been provided.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5"><sup><span>[5]</span></sup></a> It sought a list of individuals and entities who had contributed to ICANN’s revenues over the mentioned time period.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In its response, ICANN stated that it possessed no documents in the format that CIS had requested, that is, it had no reports that broke down domain name income and revenue received by each legal entity and individual.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6"><sup><span>[6]</span></sup></a> It stated that as the data for years preceding 2012 were on a different system, compiling reports of the raw data for these years would be time-consuming and overly burdensome. ICANN denied the request citing this specific provision for non-disclosure of information under the DIDP.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7"><sup><span>[7]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2015</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In July 2015, CIS filed a request for disclosure of raw data regarding granular income for the years 1999 to 2014.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8"><sup><span>[8]</span></sup></a> ICANN again said that it would be a huge burden ‘to access and review all the raw data for the years 1999 to 2014 in order to identify the raw data applicable to the request’.<a href="#_ftn9" name="_ftnref9"><sup><span>[9]</span></sup></a> However, it mentioned its commitment to preparing detailed reports on a go-forward basis - all of which would be uploaded on its Financials page.<a href="#_ftn10" name="_ftnref10"><sup><span>[10]</span></sup></a></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>- 2017</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>To follow up on ICANN’s commitment to granularity, CIS sought a detailed report on historical data for income and revenue contributions from domain names for FY 2015 and FY 2016 in June 2017.<a href="#_ftn11" name="_ftnref11"><sup><span>[11]</span></sup></a> In its reply, ICANN stated that the Revenue Detail by Source reports for the last two years would be out by end July and that the report for FY 2012 would be out by end September.<a href="#_ftn12" name="_ftnref12"><sup><span>[12]</span></sup></a> </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><span>2.The need for granularity regarding historical revenues</span></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In 2014, CIS asked for disclosure of a list of ICANN’s sources of revenue and detailed granular income for the years 1999 to 2014. ICANN published the first but cited difficulty in preparing reports of the second. In 2015, CIS again sought detailed reports of historical granular revenue for the same period, and ICANN again denied disclosure claiming that it was burdensome to handle the raw data for those years. However, as ICANN agreed to publish detailed reports for future years, CIS recently asked for publication of reports for the FYs 2012, 2015 and 2016. Reports for these three years were uploaded according to the timeline provided by ICANN.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>CIS appreciates ICANN’s cooperation with its requests and is grateful for their efforts to make the reports for FYs 2012 to 2016 available (and on a continued basis). However, it is important that detailed information of historical revenue and income from domain names for the years 1999 to 2014 be made publicly available. It is also crucial that consistent accounting and disclosure practices are adopted and made known to the Community, in order to avoid omissions of statements such as Detail Revenue by Source and Lobbying Disclosures, among many others, in the annual reports - as has evidently happened for the years preceding 2012. This is necessary to maintain financial transparency and accountability, as an organisation’s sources of revenues can inform the dependant Community about why it functions the way it does. </span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>It will also allow more informed discussions about problems that the Community has faced in the past and continues to struggle with. For example, while examining problems such as ineffective market competition or biased screening processes for TLD applicants, among others, this data can be useful in assessing the long-term interests, motives and influences of different parties involved.</span></p>
<hr />
<p> </p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1"><sup><span>[1]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2016-07-28-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2"><sup><span>[2]</span></sup></a><span> Report of Public Comment Proceeding on the .net Renewal. </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/report-comments-net-renewal-13jun17-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3"><sup><span>[3]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/cct-metrics-domain-name-registration-2016-06-27-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4"><sup><span>[4]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014"><span>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis-receives-information-on-icanns-revenues-from-domain-names-fy-2014</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5"><sup><span>[5]</span></sup></a><span> DIDP <span>Request no - 20141222-1, </span>22 December 2014. </span><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2"><span>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-2</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6"><sup><span>[6]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/cis-response-21jan15-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7"><sup><span>[7]</span></sup></a><span> Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure - <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 querulous individual.</span></span></p>
<p><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8"><sup><span>[8]</span></sup></a><span> DIDP <span>Request no - 20150722-2, 22 July 2015. </span></span><a href="https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues"><span>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-12-revenues</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref9" name="_ftn9"><sup><span>[9]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref10" name="_ftn10"><sup><span>[10]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150722-2-21aug15-en.pdf</span></a><span>; </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en"><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/financials-en</span></a></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref11" name="_ftn11"><sup><span>[11]</span></sup></a><span> DIDP Request No. 20170613-1, 14 June 2017. </span></p>
<p><a href="#_ftnref12" name="_ftn12"><sup><span>[12]</span></sup></a> <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf"><span>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20170613-1-marda-obo-cis-response-13jul17-en.pdf</span></a></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/cis2019-efforts-towards-greater-financial-disclosure-by-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherPadma VenkataramanICANNTransparencyInternet GovernanceAccountability2017-10-31T02:10:11ZBlog Entry