<div dir="ltr"><div>Thanks Padmini</div><div><br></div><div>This is very interesting as 12% is a very low number and should be explained by ICANN. </div><div><br></div><div>Based on the low numbers this could be clear evidence of the deliberate misapplication and abuse of the DIDP rules by ICANN. Or, it could be all legitimate responses by ICANN to requests. ICANN may argue that denial ( partial or otherwise) of the 88% requests were because they genuinely were not within the ambit of the DIDP . </div><div><br></div><div>The numbers do raise serious questions , however I would not based my conclusion solely upon the numbers. We need to delve further and pair your information with a few of the requests. That way we can assess for ourselves the reasonableness of the refusals</div><div><br></div><div>Where a legitimate request for information is refused (hearing the facts of the request) and denied by ICANN (hearing the reasons of the denial) provides a clear picture of what is happening at ICANN.</div><div><br></div><div>great work Padmini.</div><div><br></div><div>regards</div><div><br></div><div>Karel DOUGLAS</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 4:35 AM, Padmini <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pdmnbaruah@gmail.com" target="_blank">pdmnbaruah@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Here's a summary of my findings.<br><br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span><br clear="all"><div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Padmini Baruah<div>V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)</div><div>NLSIU, Bangalore</div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br></span><div><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 9:56 PM, Tamir Israel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca" target="_blank">tisrael@cippic.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Padmini,<br>
<br>
In addition to the strong and independent adjudicator for
information request appeals that we discussed below (which will
require encoding appointment and independence criteria), the
obligation to provide reasons for every refusal, as well as clear
rules limiting the imposition of excessive fees on information
requestors, I think it would be worthwhile including a proactive
disclosure mechanism.<br>
<br>
In doing so, I would go one step further than most proactive
disclosure mechanisms in FOI laws and add a mechanism by which
individuals can request categories of information / activity to be
added to a list of information that is periodically disclosed.
Something similar to the Australian law: 8(2) <span lang="EN-AU">The
agency must publish
the following information: </span>(g) <span lang="EN-AU">information
in
documents to which the agency routinely gives access in response
to requests
under Part III (access to documents)</span><br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 10/12/2015 8:35 AM, Padmini wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div>
<div>Dear all, <br>
<br>
</div>
This thread has been extremely insightful as far as the LEA
process is concerned. Nonetheless, I would like to draw the
conversation back to the original point of concern that I
had raised, name with respect to the <b>public
transparency </b>that the DIDP process is meant to
enhance. It would be great if we had some suggestions on how
this could be enhanced.<br>
<br>
</div>
My analysis shows that there is a severe lack of responses
from ICANN, and there are overbroad exclusions. What are some
best practices that you all think should be adopted in this
regard? It is crucial that there be <b>meaningful</b>
transparency and not mere lip service.<br>
<br>
</div>
Regards<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Padmini Baruah
<div>V Year, B.A.LL.B. (Hons.)</div>
<div>NLSIU, Bangalore</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 12, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Tamir
Israel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca" target="_blank">tisrael@cippic.ca</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Thanks James and
Rafik,<br>
<br>
This sounds good. I think I agree caution is advisable
with respect to getting ICANN to impose a rigid framework
(or oversee that framework), but it may be a useful way to
impose a general transparency requirement?<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Tamir
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On 10/11/2015 10:54 AM, James Gannon wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">I reached out
to some of the registrars and they are not
aware of any formal process that LEAs would go
through on the ICANN side, the process appears
to be to merely forward straight to the </font><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">registrar with no
direct engagement with the LEA in question. We
can/should put this question to Allan Grogan
when he visits us as I think its an
interesting one.</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="Calibri,sans-serif">-Jaes</font></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
</div>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<br>
</div>
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;font-size:14px">
<div style="border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentColor currentColor;padding:3pt 0in 0in;text-align:left;color:black;font-family:Calibri;font-size:12pt"> <span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span>NCSG-Discuss
on behalf of Rafik Dammak<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span>Rafik
Dammak<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span>Sunday
11 October 2015 at 2:49 p.m.<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span>"<a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU" target="_blank">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>"<br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span>Re:
DIDP Analysis<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hi Tamir,<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-10-11 4:10
GMT+09:00 Tamir Israel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca" target="_blank">tisrael@cippic.ca</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Thanks
Rafik,<br>
<br>
On second though, I think you are
probably right. I know for .CA, LEA
requests go directly to CIRA but now
that I think about it, it must be
because of the way our WHOIS is
setup. It would make sense for LEA
requests to go to registrars rather
than ICANN.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ccTLD space is another world, even
more diverse and unknwon :)</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">If
that's the case though then, as you
say, it might still be worth
exploring transparency reports, even
if these end up coming from the GAC
or are imposed onto registrars via
ICANN policy. As an accountability
mechanism, these reports are
becoming fairly standard to have in
the telecommunications context..<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ICANN sounds receiving requests and
it happened that its teams get
involved in some operations which
raised the issue about the expansion
of ICANN remit .</div>
<div> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><br>
Not sure if the DIDP process is the
most appropriate mechanism for it
though. Any thoughts on how
something like that could be moved
forward (or reasons why it should
not be moved forward) would be
appreciated.. There might be a
clearer picture of how to design
such a thing after the dublin
meeting (which, regrettably, I
cannot attend).<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>maybe not but the transparency
report seems a good framework to start
with if we talk about compliance and
abuse reports. I won't think that
ICANN should push the registrars and
registries for a specific way to do it
, but if we can work the contracted
parties on that matter it will be
worthy to explore. there are already
some guidelines/principles/ framework
that we can suggest here to registries
and registrars. such transparency
would protect more users interests.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>
<div><br>
<div>On 10/10/2015 9:28 AM,
Rafik Dammak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">Hi
Tamir,<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">2015-10-10
2:11 GMT+09:00 Tamir
Israel <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca" target="_blank">tisrael@cippic.ca</a>></span>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid">Perhaps
a single independent
commissioner-type may
make the most sense.<br>
The trick I think
would be to ensure
independence. That
tends to be<br>
easier to do if there
are more than one,
because you can
allocate one<br>
per stakeholder group.
Still, I think by
encoding some criteria
(no<br>
strong industry or
ICANN affil for 2
years back or
something; nomination<br>
committee w/CS
representation;
dedicated funding for
independence) it<br>
can be done.<br>
<br>
Another quick thought
here: I did not see a
proactive disclosure
section<br>
in the document. Would
it be worth adding?<br>
<br>
Related, does anyone
know if ICANN handles
law enforcement
requests or<br>
whether these are
handled by the
registrars? If so, it
would seem that<br>
including the
obligation to issue
annual LEA
transparency reports
would<br>
not be out of line.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>to be honest, it is
unclear how ICANN
handle direct requests
from LEA, while we may
get more information
from registrars on the
type of requests they
get.</div>
<div> there is some work
going with the new
Compliance Chief
Officer regarding how
to handle requests or
abuse reports (but not
necessarily LEA) .
here a blog post with
some updates <a href="https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-activity" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/news/blog/update-on-steps-to-combat-abuse-and-illegal-activity</a>
(there are 2 sessions
at ICANN meeting in
wednesday 21st Oct <a href="https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-practices-combating-abuse" target="_blank">https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-practices-combating-abuse</a>
& <a href="https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-compliance" target="_blank">https://dublin54.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/wed-compliance</a>
. I invited weeks ago
The Compliance Chief
Officer to come to
NCSG meeting in
Tuesday 20th Oct so we
can discuss with him.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would highlight
that LEAs have their
GAC Public Safety
working group and it
has several sessions
in Dublin meeting too.
that was shared by the
LEAs representatives
who came to NCSG
meeting in Buenos
Aires. it will be
interesting to see
what they are planning
to do and push for.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>definitely, the
idea of LEA
transparency reports
should be suggested .</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid"><br>
<div>
<div><br>
On 10/7/2015 8:46
AM, Michael
Karanicolas wrote:<br>
> That's a very
interesting idea.
I feel like the
structure of
appeals<br>
> is probably
the trickiest
conceptual aspect
of improving the
DIDP, so<br>
> good to
consider
alternatives. I
think in part it
would depend on
the<br>
> level of
demand for
information that
ICANN gets, and
how often appeals<br>
> go forward.
It's also
important to bear
in mind that,
whoever is<br>
> deciding
these things, they
need to have
access to
absolutely<br>
> everything
ICANN has, and a
high level of
familiarity with
the inner<br>
> workings of
ICANN, so that
they could
determine, for
example, whether<br>
> particular
information would
compromise the
integrity of
ICANN's<br>
> deliberative
and
decision-making
process in line
with the second<br>
> defined
condition for
nondisclosure.<br>
><br>
> This is in
addition to the
qualities Karel
mentions (robust,
cost<br>
> effective,
timely appeals) -
which I also fully
agree with.<br>
><br>
> On Tue, Oct
6, 2015 at 2:12
PM, Tamir Israel
<<a href="mailto:tisrael@cippic.ca" target="_blank">tisrael@cippic.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
>> On
10/6/2015 1:02 PM,
Michael
Karanicolas wrote:<br>
>>> This
sort of brings us
back to a
fundamental
challenge with
reforming ICANN's<br>
>>>
access to
information
system, which is
the need for some
sort of analogous
independent branch
(I'm not
completely certain
the Ombudsman fits
the bill).<br>
>> On this
point, I'm not
sure how far we
dare go here, but
would it be<br>
>>
unreasonable to
set up an arb
panel comparable
to the ones
private ones<br>
>> used for
the UDRP (only, of
course, appointed
by a
cross-stakeholder<br>
>>
nomination
committee and with
strict
independence
criteria) for<br>
>>
evaluating such
things?<br>
>><br>
>> Best,<br>
>> Tamir<br>
>><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span> </blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>