[PC-NCSG] DIDP

[Edward Morris]

Hi Robin, everybody,
  

----------------------------------------
 From: "Robin Gross" <robin at ipjustice.org>
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2015 4:01 PM
To: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1 at toast.net>
Cc: "pc-ncsg" <pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>, "Stefania Milan" 
<Stefania.Milan at eui.eu>
Subject: Re: DIDP   
 Thanks very much for doing this, Ed. I had also considered filing an 
ombudsman complaint on the matter. But I'll wait until after the DIDP is 
denied by ICANN before doing that.
  
 -
  
 Well, something very unusual happened on the way to having my DIDP being 
denied by ICANN. For the first time in history ICANN actually released 
contractual details in response to a DIDP request. Not only that, ICANN 
actually overtly performed a balance of interest test in deciding to 
release the data. I must admit I was unprepared for this. Until now we've 
had a nice arrangement: we do a DIDP, ICANN rejects it, we call ICANN 
names, repeat. This time they actually did what they are supposed to do. 
Here is a link to the ICANN response:
  
 
https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-response-20150717-1-morris-
14aug15-en.pdf
  
 We didn't get all the information I was looking for but we got some. In 
addition, while properly criticising some aspects of my request for being 
overly broad (I was using the "kitchen sink" approach)  ICANN is still 
looking through documents to attempt to give us even more information. 
  
 Although a personal request (as was my Westlake public comment) I'd 
certainly welcome any guidance as to what additional information might 
exist that I should request. My goal remains: 1) to attempt to get a re-do 
of the study  if at all possible ,  2) to find some/any contractual 
violation that we may recognise and report for action to ICANN legal and, 
perhaps of greatest importance, 3) to determine how ICANN's  contract with 
the vendor could be so poorly written that Westlake could actually be paid 
for such horrid work and to ensure that this doesn't happen in the future.
  
 I'll note that in the response  ICANN has actually asked us for help, 
writing "ICANN is, however, very interested in hearing from the community 
about specific concerns about vendor services that impact the community, so 
that ICANN can perform any investigation into non-compliance that may be 
warranted."
  
 I read this as being an invitation to all of us to alert ICANN to any 
possible contractual violation committed by Westlake. Do we see any? In 
addition to Robin's plans to file a complaint with the Ombudsman and my 
continued efforts to get more information release,d I'm thinking that 
perhaps we should think about alerting ICANN Legal to some of the problems 
we had with Westlake in the hope that they might be able to pursue 
contractual violations with the company.
  
 I'd be interested in hearing any and all thoughts on this matter. I've 
been working with Sam Eisner on this and on this particular matter I do 
believe ICANN Legal is ready to work with us to address any grievances we 
may have with Westlake that could constitute contractual non-performance. 
I'd certainly like to prevent Westlake from getting future ICANN work, if 
at all possible.
  
 Thanks for considering,
  
 Ed
  
  

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20150823/11da0aa8/attachment.html>