DIDP Analysis

	A	B	C	D	E	F
1	Requester	Information sought	Date requested	Date replied	Documents disclosed?	Exceptions Clause invoked?
2	Danny Younger	Copies of RAAs for Brandon Grey Internet Services Inc., DBA Namejuice.com, EstDomains.Inc	24/09/2008	24/10/2008	Partly	Yes, (5)
3	Brian Krebs	Officers listed on the RAA Agreement between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphin Inc.	21/11/2008	22/12/2008	No	No
4	Christopher Cielinski, Commercial Contract Inc.	Copy of original financial support and cover letter provided to ICANN by Commercial Contract as a part of their application for the .shop/.mall/.svc TLD	06/02/2009	06/03/2009	No	Invoked the Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure without mentioning anything specific.
5	Edward Hasbrouck	Copies of documents relating to the Independent Review Process	06/03/2009	03/04/2009	No	Yes, (2), (12)
6	Edward Hasbrouck	Documentation relatig to the ICANN Ombudsman and his appointment	03/04/2009	06/05/2009	No (said the information was publicly available)	No
7	Tim Ruiz	Form 990 for Fiscal Year Ending 30 June 2008, details regarding the $240,000 expenditure for Lobbying Activities as reported on Schedule A Part VI‐B of Form 990 for Fiscal Year ending 30 June 2007, 2008, 2009, identification of the contributors redacted on Schedule B of Form 990 for Fiscal Year ending 30 June 2007, 2008, 2009 and criteria for bonuses for Paul Twomey for those three years, and documents relating to Vendors who provided technical or professional services to the Board and Staff for 1007, 2008 and 2008	08/05/2009	05/06/2009	Partly	Yes, (2), (4), (5), (6), (11), (12)
8	Victoria McEvedy	Questions: i) Protocols, guidelines, codes, etc. governing Staff and Secretariat interaction with GNSO interested parties, and provisions for protection of independence and impartiality of Staff and Secretariat. Similarly as to CCNSO and ASO. Ii) Stanard terms in contracts between Starff and Secretariat impacting issues in i) including contract term periods and identification of the ICANN entity to which the Staff and Secretariat are legally responsible. iii) Protocols, guidelines, codes, etc. for publication and transparency in negotiations with GNSO interested parties. Similarly as to Staff and CCNSO and ASO. iv) Dispute that would protect Staff from improper pressures or inducements to prefer a GNSO interested party in their works and protections from retaliation should they refuse or complain.	17/09/2009	16/10/2009	Partially	Yes, (4), (6)
9	Alejandra Barrientos	the documentation refering to the RFC 1591.3 item 2	25/09/2009	25/09/2009	Yes. The following is a link to RFC 1591, available from the IETF page: http://www.ieR.org/rfc/ rfc1591.txt.	No
10	Eric Brunner Williams	“Correspondence,minutes, etc.between ICANN and CRAI, which set forth the scope of the CRAI economic research published on 10/24/08.”	29/04/2010	28/05/2010	Yes. Provided 19 August 2009 email from Kurt Pritz to David Maher providing the CRA Statement of Work and follow up questions from ICANN to Charles River Associates, International (CRAI) regarding the CRAI work culminating in the 24 October 2008 report on “Revisiting Vertical Separation of Registries and Registrars,” available at http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-‐gtlds/crai-‐report-‐24oct08-‐en.pdf	No
11	Michael Palage	Documents relating to an agreement between ICANN and the New South Wales government regarding funding of ICANN Sydney's office	24/06/2010	22/07/2010	No	Yes, (1), (5)
12	Barry Carter	list of all registered domains (including all public registrant information)	20/08/2010	19/09/2010	Partially. Directed the requestor towards whatever was publicly available, but did not disclose most of it on grounds of excessive breadth	Yes. (12)
13	Diane Duke	Documentation pertaining to ICM's application for the .xxx TLD	08/09/2010	07/10/2010	No	Yes, (5)
14	Evan Leibovitch and Avri Doria	Staff report to the Board retreat on the issue of the new gTLD Applicatn support	27/09/2010	27/10/2010	No	No
15	Iliya Bazlyankov	1. The DNS Stability panel working criteria (or parts of it) that were applied to evaluate and subsequently reject the Bulgarian application. 2. The decision of the DNS Stability panel, used to reject the Bulgarian application.	01/12/2010	30/10/2010	No	Yes. (2), (3), (5), (11)
16	Jorge Sabate	list of all registered domains (including all public registrant information). If you are unable to provide the whole information, I would like to know the date was created the domain name christiansmith.com.	07/12/2010	06/01/2011	Partly, to the extent publicly available	Yes, (12)
17	Denise Subramaniam	Based on the information available on ICANN’s website a requirement for ICANN accreditation requires that the registrar "shall maintain in force commercial general liability insurance with policy limits of at least U$500,000 covering liabilities arising from Registrar's registrar business during the term of this Agreement." Whether 4Domains, Inc. maintained such a policy? If 4Domains, Inc. has not maintained such a policy: i) What procedures and policies does ICANN have in place to assure that ICANN accredited registrars have and maintain appropriate commercial general liability insurance? ii) What steps were taken by ICANN to assure that 4Domains, Inc. was adhering to what they agreed to on their Registrar Accreditation Agreement form? iii) What procedures and policies does ICANN have in place to assure that liabilities caused by 4Domains, Inc.’s failures and incurred by registrars dependent on the ICANN accreditation status of 4Domains, Inc. are compensated when an ICANN accredited registrar fails to maintain appropriate commercial general liability insurance? iv) A request a list of other resellers for 4Domains, Inc. v) A request a list of all complaints ICANN has received about 4Domains, Inc. vi) A request a history of ICANN’s monitoring acQviQes pertaining to 4Domains, Inc. to assure it continued to adhere to the requirements on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement form	08/12/2010	08/12/2010	Partly	No
18	Michael Palage	i) Request for the legal chain of custody in connection with how it became the operator of the L Root; ii)Any documents/communications/analysis regarding any circumstances in which the L Root would not contain the “identical” set of information contained in the A Root; and iii) Request for all documents/analysis regarding the change in IP addresses associated with the L-Root in 2007, with specific attention paid to any Internet security and stability concerns raised regarding this change."	10/03/2011	09/04/2011	Partly	Yes, (5), (8), (9), (10),
19	Kieren McCarthy	i) A document provided by the GAC to the Board in early March 2011 that covered the GAC's responses to Board comments regarding the IP issues in the GAC Scorecard. ii) The ICANN staff paper regarding a possible process for GAC and Board to disagree, as outlined in the bylaw) (section Article XI, Section 2, Paragraph 1(j) ), and requested by a Board resolution in December 2010 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-‐ 10dec10-‐en.htm#_Toc153605131). iii)The staff paper covering ATRT recommendations that was requested by the Board in Resolution 2011.01.25.32 and provided to the Board on 21 February 2011.	16/03/2011	15/04/2011	Yes	No
20	Diane Duke	Documentation relating to the IFFOR and the ICM Registry's contracts for labelling and monitoring	11/04/2011	11/05/2011	No	No
21	Michael Palage	i) Request on the Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) web page, for the criteria that ICANN staff has employed over the last four years in analyzing funnel requests, relating to the aspect of the funnel request stating: “In the event ICANN reasonably determines during the 15 calendar day "preliminary determination" period that the Registry Service might raise significant competition issues, ICANN shall refer the issue to the appropriate governmental competition authority or authorities with jurisdiction over the matter." ii) Request that ICANN publish on the New gTLD Program web page (http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-program.htm) the “new Project Plan” referenced in the preliminary minutes of the 22 April 2010 Board meeting.	27/04/2011	26/05/2010	Yes	No
22	Kevin Murphy	Documents of meeting referred to by Mr. Larry Strickland in the following article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obama-‐administration-‐joins-‐critics-‐ of-‐us-‐nonprofit-‐that-‐oversees-‐internet/2011/02/16/ABI2XzJ_story_1.html	23/05/2011	22/06/2011	Partly	No
23	Kieren McCarthy	Scorecard with respect to the status of implementation of the ATRT	13/06/2011	13/07/2011	partially/mentioned it was part of a report	No
24	John Bell, The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition	1. Documents pertaining to original 'purpose' field description in for the .JOBS TLD in the IANA Root Zone Database , 2. Documents and communications related to the changes related to this description, 3. explanation or documents regarding the circumstances of the change(s) made in the IANA Root Zone Database relating to the “Purpose” field description for the .JOBS TLD, including but not limited to the following: • Which person or entity requested the change; • The date the change was requested; • The date(s) the change was reviewed and approved by IANA and/or ICANN; • The reason(s) given for requesting the change; and • The person(s) at IANA and/or ICANN responsible for reviewing and approving the change.	08/07/2011	05/08/2011	Partially. Some part of the documentation has been attached. Also has been directed to a publicly available document that does not specifically address the questions raised. The rest remains unanswered.	Yes, (6). (8), (10)
25	James Keener	Copy of RAA Agreement between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphins Inc. as well as names on the application	10/08/2011	09/09/2011	Yes	No
26	Kieren McCarthy	List of Board Meetings , and their agendas and minutes, between 29 July 2011 and 16 August 2011	20/08/2011	19/09/2011	Yes	No
27	Paul McGrady	Request sought recordings and transcripts from meetings from May 2009 to the present, and meetings of the ccNSO were not required.	02/09/2011	02/10/2011	No	Yes, (1)
28	Michael Palage	In relation to ICANN's IDN Fast Track Billing Activity, out of 18 requests that ICANN has processed till date, it has billed over $600K but only collected $132K. Therefore: i) Documentation regarding the actual costs to process these 18 applications and what where the actual costs (internal and external)? ii) Was the $132K sufficient to process these applications? iii)Was the $132K sufficient to pay for the review of these 18 applications, and documentation reconciling these reduced evaluation fees versus the proposed $185,000 fee for a single gTLD application? iv) If the $132K was not sufficient to process these applications, what funds did ICANN use to process these applications? v) In the October 2010 Board Briefing materials there is a document entitled “IDN ccTLD Financial Overview”, which states that ICANN has already written off as “uncollectable” $50,000 of the $572,000 fees. Accounting of the total amount of fees in connection with IDN ccTLDs that have been written off as “uncollectable"? vi) Once an IDN ccTLD application fee has been written off as “uncollectable” does this amount still appear in the IDN fees billed One Page Metrics Report?	16/09/2011	16/10/2011	Partly	No
29	Kieren McCarthy	i) What was the process ICANN staff used to arrive at the list of three Board Committee meetings that were provided i.e. how precisely was the information gathered? ii) Did ICANN staff directly contact any Board members and ask what meetings they had held with at least three other Board members during which ICANN business was discussed between 29 July 2011 and 16 August 2011? iii) If yes to question 2 i.e. ICANN staff did contact Board members and request what meetings they had held with other Board members between 29 July 2011 and 16 August 2011, a request for copies or notes of any such correspondence from the date of the original request (20 August 2011) to the response to that request (19 September 2011). iv) If no to question 2 i.e. ICANN staff did not contact Board members and request what meetings they had held with other Board members between 29 July 2011 and 16 August 2011, a request from each Board member a list of any meeting, teleconference or online discussion that they had held with at least three other Board members during which ICANN business was discussed that was NOT listed on the list you provided in response to 20110820-‐1 during the period of 29 July 2011 and 16 August 2011. v) If you need to carry out request 4 i.e. ICANN staff did not previously contact Board members and request what meetings they had held with other Board members between 29 July 2011 and 16 August, can you provide the results of that request."	19/09/2011	20/09/2011	No	No
30	Kieren McCarthy	Documentation and logs relating to ICANN's internal action pertaining certain DIDP requests	20/10/2011	19/11/2011	No	Yes, (2), (6), (8), (9)
31	Kieren McCarthy	With regard to Request No. 20110820-1: i) Whether ICANN staff directly contacted ICANN Board members to request whether they had arranged meetings that may have arranged outside the formal process referenced in your process. ii) If the answer to i) is Yes, then all the material and correspondence related to the queries. iii) Whether ICANN considers emails sent through its email system using an 'icann.org' email address and concerning ICANN business as covered by the DIDP? iv) If the answer to iii) is YEs, request for a copy of emails sent or received through an 'icann.org' email address and sent between 28 July 2011 and 12 August 2011 that are pertaining to a meeting, teleconference or discussion between Board members to be held between 8‐12 August 2011, with the exception of the IANA Committee meeting already identified in DIDP request 20110820-1."	20/10/2011	20/09/2011	No	Yes, (2)
32	Kieren McCarthy	Documentation relating to ICANN's Whistleblower policy	27/10/2011	26/11/2011	No	Yes, (4), (6), (8)
33	R. Shawn Gunnarson	Response to DIDP request by Kieren McCarthy	29/11/2011	29/11/2011	Yes	No
34	R. Shawn Gunnarson	i) Any Requests for Information (RFI), Requests for Quotation (RFQ), or Requests for Proposal (RFP) that ICANN staff, officers, or directors transmitted to any third parties soliciting a review of ICANN's three Board of Directors review mechanisms by independent experts, as called for in the ATRT Recommendation‐Proposed Implementation Plans, in order to implement the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's Recommendation #23; ii) Any executed agreements or contracts with the party or parties whose response to an RFI, RFQ, or RFP referenced in (i) was accepted by ICANN, along with any attachments, to such agreements or contracts; iii) Any document transmitted by ICANN to any party referenced in (ii) identifying the expert or experts and their institutional affiliation(s) responsible for performing the work described in (i) and describing the work mandate, timelines, performance goals and standards, deliverables, project budget, and any other material terms of the agreement between ICANN and the party or parties referenced in (ii) that are not already contained in documents requested in (ii) iv) Any report, memorandum, email, transcript, or other document describing why ICANN did not post on its website an RFP with respect to the solicitation described in (i)"	07/12/2011	06/01/2012	No	No
35	George Todoroff	list of the six DNS stability panel members that reviewed and subsequently rejected the Bulgarian IDN ccTLD fast-‐track application in 2010.	17/01/2012	16/02/2014	No	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (11)
36	George Kirikos	Copy of all correspondence submitted to ICANN in the past 24 months (from this request) that the staff have censored from the correspondence page	15/03/2012	13/04/2012	No	Yes, (12)
37	John Bell, The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition	documents, communications and information relating to the arbitration initiated by Employ Media LLC (“Employ Media”) against the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) arising from the breach notice issued by ICANN on February 27, 2011	03/04/2012	03/05/2012	Partially. The requester has been directed to publicly available information on the concerned arbitration	Yes. (1) (2), (4), (5), (6), (7)
38	Phil Corwin	Information on a 175k budget item in the Draft FY13 budget regarding a summit on the URS Process	29/05/2012	28/06/2012	No	Yes. (5), (8), (9)
39	David Maher	Agreement for provision of Trademark Clearinghouse services, documents relating to claims of ownership of IPRs, functional/technical specification documents	08/08/2012	07/09/2012	No	Yes, (5), (6), (8), (11)
40	George Kirikos	ICANN's updated litigation and IRP page	27/09/2012	27/11/2012	Yes, was not exactly a DIDP	No
41	Kieren McCarthy	Implementation report for recommendation 23 of the ATRT review	27/10/2012	26/11/2012	Yes	No
42	Igor Petrenko	a list of all registered domains and reasons for refusal	29/01/2013	28/02/2013	Partly, to the extent publicly available	Yes, (12)
43	Mary Blasy	Documents relating to Verisign's renewal of the .com domain name registry agreement, including communications with the US government's Department of Commerce and Justice	05/02/2013	13/03/2013	No. ICANN went on to state that it did not believe that the public interest would override the harm to ICANN or any of the contracting parties	Yes. (1), (2), (3), (5), (8), (9)
44	Garth Bruen	9 Requests on tickets submitted through the WDPRS seeking correspondence between ICANN and the Registrars, internal communication etc.	05/02/2013	07/03/2013	No, beyond directing the requester to a generic zone file access programme available online	Yes. (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9)
45	Oksana Prykhodko	Documents pertaining to information on the delegation of the IDN ccTLD .ykp to Ukraine	26/03/2013	24/04/2013	Partly, to the extent publicly available	Yes, (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10)
46	Flip Petillion	documents directly and indirectly relating to (1) the standard used to determine whether gTLD strings are confusingly similar and (2) the specific determination that “.hotels” and “.hoteis” are confusingly similar. Specifically, reports of the String Similarity Panel	28/03/2013	27/04/2014	Partly	Yes, (3), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11)
47	Kevin Murphy	Recordings and transcripts of all the strawmen meetings in Belgium and Los Angeles in November 2012 relating to the Trademark Clearinghouse	13/04/2013	13/05/2013	No, but said would be posted on the ICANN Website	No
48	Thomas Indelicarto, Verisign	Communication relating to the gTLD delegation, communications between ICANN Staff from January 2013-now, information relating to the criteria used by ICANN to determine what correspondence it makes public	22/04/2013	19/06/2013	No	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9) , (10), (12)
49	George Kirikos	ICANN's BFC page to be updated with current ICANN minutes, + the IRS form 990 submitted by ICANN for the period ending 30 June 2012	07/05/2013	16/05/2013	No. Said would be out in the public domain, and it has been done	No
50	George Kirikos	Documents related to the working of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services	26/06/2013	26/07/2013	Partially	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (9)
51	NCSG	1. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning and / or leading to the staff action of the imposition of the policy announced in the 20 March 2013 staff memo titled “Trademark Claims Protection for Previously Abused Names. 2. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, leading to adoption of staff recommendation of the so-called “Trademark +50” policy, including, but not exclusively, any information, data, facts or rationale, per article 7 of the Affirmation of Commitments by the United States Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers, leading to the determination that the number “50” was the appropriate enumerator for this unprecedented extension of property rights and if any other numbers were considered. 3. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, involved in the preparation, compilation and production of Fadi 2 Chehade’s 19 September 2012 letter to members of the United States Congress. 4. All correspondence between ICANN, staff and Board, and third parties, including but not exclusively government officials, trade associations, corporate and legal firms and interests, concerning the extension of trademark protection beyond the GNSO-approved ‘exact match’ standard in the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH). 5. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning the meeting convened by Fadi Chehade in Los Angeles on 15-16 November 2012 to discuss the creation of new trademark privileges in new gtld policy. This request explicitly includes but is not limited to materials relating to the meeting’s organization, the substance of its discussions, and any follow-up materials related to the meeting. 6. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, concerning staff memo of 29 November 2012, and the 3 December 2013 update, titled “Trademark Clearinghouse: Strawman Solution”, involving any aspect of allegedly abusively registered strings and policy / implementation concerns thereof. 7. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, provided to or used by Mr. Chehade and/or staff in compiling Mr. Chehade’s 26 November 2012 blog post concerning strings and allegedly abusive registrations and policy / implementation issues thereof. This request explicitly includes but is not limited to any such materials relating to the post-publication change, deletion, addition, or other editing of the text of the blog post. 8. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, used in 3 the creation of Mr. Chehade’s e-mail to GNSO Chair Jonathan Robinson asking for “policy guidance” on the portion of the Strawman Model relating to the scope of trademark claims. 9. All documentation, contracts, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to ICANN, staff, board and external contractor’s, consideration of and response to Reconsideration Request 13-3. 10. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee’s memo of 16 May 2013 concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3. This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC’s 16 May meeting in which NCSG’s request was discussed, including board discussions, staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions. 11. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the Board Governance Committee’s Revised Recommendation of 25 June 2013, concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3, including but not limited to any materials relating to the reason for the revision. This request includes but is not limited to materials related to the BGC’s 25 June meeting in which NCSG’s request was discussed, including staff briefings or any notes, records or other information related to those staff briefings or board discussions. 12. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including any and all communication between staff and Board, relating to the New gTLD Program Committees action of 2 July 2013 relating to Reconsideration Request 13-3. 4 13. All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and United States Senator Pat Leahy from 1 May 2012 to the present. 14. All correspondence, and / or records thereof, between ICANN, staff and Board, and Yahoo! Inc., including that between ICANN and Yahoo!’s representatives and agents, from 1 May 2012 to the present. 15. All documentation, memos, reports, analysis, correspondence, preparatory documents or any other information type not heretofore specified, both internal and external to ICANN in it’s possession, in any and all formats, form and media, including contracts and invoices, relating to the involvement and / or contracting of outside counsel in any matter concerning Reconsideration Request 13-3	24/07/2013	24/08/2013	Partially	Yes, (1), (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (11), (12)
52	Mathilde Frison	Exchanges between ICANN and Registrars during the handling by ICANN of WHOIS Conflicts with Privacy Law, Copy of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Letter send by Europol to ICANN and the GAC expressing demands from Law Enforcement bodies regarding the 2013 RAA	10/08/2013	09/09/2013	No	Yes, (2), (9)
53	Kelsey Britton	disclosure of a report that includes the new domain names that were added during the report period of the Monthly Registry Reports available at http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registries/reports.	13/01/2014	12/02/2014	No	No
54	Compwiz	Communications from Network Solutions to ICANN and vice versa for COMPWIZ.COM	20/03/2014	19/04/2013	No. Also said that the public interest does not outweigh the harm	Yes. (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9)
55	Lord Alan Watson	I. i) All communications between ICANN and Google relating to the Expert Determination or the ICOMP .search Community Objection. ii) All documents in ICANN’s possession or control concerning communications between ICANN and Google relating to the Expert Determination or the ICOMP .search Community Objection. iii) All communications between ICANN and Google relating to ICANN’s evaluation of Google’s .search application or any application change requests or amendments thereto. iv) All documents in ICANN’s possession or control concerning communications between ICANN and Google relating to ICANN’s evaluation of Google’s .search application of any application change requests or amendments thereto. v) All documents in ICANN’s possession or control concerning any communications between Google and the Expert Panel relating to Google’s .search application or any application change requests or amendments thereto, or to the ICOMP .search Community Objection. II. i) All communications between ICANN, on the one hand, and ICC, ICE or the Expert Panel, on the other hand, relating to the Expert Determination or the ICOMP .search Community Objection. ii) All documents in ICANN’s possession or control concerning communications between ICANN, on the one hand, and ICC, ICE or the Expert Panel, on the other hand, relating to the Expert Determination or the ICOMP .search Community Objection. iii) All communications between ICANN, on the one hand, and ICC, ICE or the Expert Panel, on the other hand, relating to ICANN’s evaluation of Google’s .search application or any application change requests or amendments thereto. iv) All documents in ICANN’s possession or control concerning communications between ICANN, on the one hand, and ICC, ICE or the Expert Panel, on the other hand, relating to ICANN’s evaluation of Google’s .search application or any application change requests or amendments thereto. v) All documents identifying the dates on which ICANN became aware of the proposed or actual contents or reasoning of, or the proposed or final decision reached in, the Expert Determination."	20/03/2014	19/04/2014	Partly	Yes, (2), (5), (6), (9), (11)
56	George Kirikos	disclosure of ICANN’s unredacted Form 990 for the period ending 30 June 2011	15/05/2014	14/06/2014	Yes	No
57	Flip Petillion	“all documents directly and indirectly relating to (1) the balance of the competing interests of each factor” considered by the New gTLD Program Committee (“NGPC”) in approving Resolution 2014.05.14.NG03, which determined that Amazon EU S.à.r.l.’s (“Amazon”) applications for .AMAZON and the related internationalized domain names in Japanese and Chinese (collectively, the “Amazon Applications”) should not proceed, “and (2) the Governmental Advisory Committee’s (“GAC”) advice in relation to the Amazon Applications	23/05/2014	20/06/2014	Partly, to the extent publicly available	Yes, (2), (3), (8), (12)
58	Donuts, Inc.; FairWinds Partners, LLC; Fegistry LLC; Famous Four Media Limited; Minds + Machines; and Radix FZC	all communications relating to the creation of the Community Priority Evaluation (“CPE”) report (the “Report”) approving the community application for .HOTEL submitted by HOTEL Top-Level-Domain S.a.r.l. (“Hotel TLD”) and relating to the appointment of the CPE Panel that produced the Report	04/08/2014	03/09/2014	No	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
59	Dot Registry LLC	a copy of the contract between ICANN and the EIU, which serves as the sole evaluator for CPEs	04/09/2014	03/10/2014	No	Yes, (2), (5), (6)
60	fTLD Registry Servies LLC	a copy of any communications or written agreement between ICANN and Donuts relating to extending the period for Donuts to engage in the CEP or to file an IRP, including the terms of any such extension	17/09/2014	16/10/2014	No	Yes, also mentions By-Law limitation. (2), (6)
61	Bart Lieben	Documents relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process	26/09/2014	24/10/2014	Partially	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
62	Michael Palage	i) Historical accounting of application fees/contribution fees billed/received in connection with the IDN ccTLD applications. ii) Why does ICANN report its IDN ccTLD revenues on a quarterly and not on an annual basis? iii) Documentation regarding fees that ICANN has billed/received in connection with services provided, relating to the IDN ccTLD on an annual basis, and costs incurred by ICANN in connection with this programme. iv) With respect to voluntary contributions made by ICANN to IDN ccTLD operators, has ICANN written off any of the amounts, and if so, the documentation for the same? v) Documentation regarding breakdown of ccTLD contribution.	30/09/2014	30/10/2014	Partially	Yes, (5), (6), (11)
63	Kevin Murphy	letter from Rod Beckstrom to Maria Del Rosario Guerra dated December 1, 2009	21/10/2014	20/11/2014	Partially (barely)	Yes, (1), (3), (5), (6), (10). "ICANN was able to determine that the requested 1 December Letter specifically contains redelegation-related information and therefore is subject to several Nondisclosure Conditions"
64	Reg Levy	Documents relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process	22/10/2014	31/10/2014	Partially	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
65	Bart Lieben	Documents relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process	22/10/2014	31/10/2014	Partially	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
66	Centre for Internet and Society	Expenses relating to Travels and Meetings for the years 1999-2014 incurred by ICANN, and its affiliates etc	18/12/2014	16/01/2015	Partially	Yes, (12).
67	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of ICANN's income from domain names between 1999-2014	22/12/2014	21/01/2015	Partially	Yes, (12).
68	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of cyber attacks suffered by ICANN since 1999	24/12/2014	23/01/2015	No	Yes. (1), (2), (6), (8), (9), (12)
69	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of the cases that have been decided by the ICANN Ombudsman	26/12/2014	27/01/2015	No.	Yes. (2), (8), (9), (12)
70	Centre for Internet and Society	Information pertaining to the implementation of the NETMundial Principles	27/12/2014	27/01/2015	No. ICANN did not address these queries and went on to state instead that it was not responsible for implementing the NETMundial Principles, and that it was not a part of ICANN's 'operational activities'	Yes. (1), (2), (6), (8), (9), (12)
71	Centre for Internet and Society	Information pertaining to the Global Advisory Groups	12/01/2015	11/02/2015	Yes	No
72	Centre for Internet and Society	Information relating to the gTLD programme auction	12/01/2015	09/02/2015	Yes	No
73	Centre for Internet and Society	Organogram sought to explain ICANN's internal heirarchy as well as names of ICANN Staff	13/01/2015	11/02/2015	Yes	No
74	Centre for Internet and Society	Expenses incurred by ICANN towards the NETMundial Initiative	13/01/2015	12/02/2015	Partially	Yes. (2), (3), (4), (6), (9), (12)
75	Guru Acharya	disclosure of the “Continuity and Contingency Plan (and any other relevant documentation) prepared by ICANN as required under clause C.7.3 of the IANA Functions Contract	20/01/2015	19/02/2015	Partially. ICANN has committed to publishing a successor contract. However, no direct response to the query in question	Yes. (1), (2), (3), (9)
76	Centre for Internet and Society	Details of contract fees paid by the RIRs from 1999-2014	06/02/2015	08/03/2015	Yes	No
77	Kin Sun	Documents relating to domain name Yuetu.com	11/02/2015	13/03/2015	No	Yes. (3), (5)
78	James Gannon	Disclosure of Root Zone KSK Operator Function Termination Plan specified in Section C.7.3 Plan for Transition to Successor Contractor	12/03/2015	25/03/2015	No	Yes. (1), (2), (3), (9), (10)
79	James Gannon	Disclosure of Contingency and Continuity of Operations Plan as specified in Section 1.7.2.1 of the ICANN response to the NTIA RFP Solicitation No: SA1301-12- RP-0043	14/03/2015	25/03/2015	No	Yes. (1), (3), (6), (10), (11),
80	Paul Kane	Workflow process documents with statistics for each stage of the IANA Root Zone Management Function	07/04/2015	07/05/2015	No	Yes. (1), (2), (3), (6) (8), (9), (10), (11)
81	James Bridle	Documents relating to the delegation and operation of the .io domain name, including correspondence between ICANN and the delegate and other information	27/04/2015	27/05/2015	Partially	Yes, (1), (2), (3), (9), (10)
82	Flip Petillion	Information relating to the Data Exposure issue in the new gTLD application and GDD portals first reported on 1 March 2015	05/06/2015	05/07/2015	Partially	Yes,(2), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10)
83	Edward Morris	Documentation relating to ICANN's relationship with Westlake Governance Ltd. with respect to the review of the GNSO	17/07/2015	14/08/2015	Partially	Yes, (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (11)
84	Centre for Internet and Society	Documents relating to ICANN's effort to implement the NETmundial Initiative	22/07/2015	21/08/2015	No	Yes, (1). (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (12)
85	Centre for Internet and Society	raw data with respect to income/revenue statements of ICANN from 1999-2001	22/07/2015	21/08/2015	No	Yes, (12)
86	Kevin Murphy	documentation relating to the IRP matter of DotConnect Africa v. ICANN	27/07/2015	26/08/2015	Partially	Yes, (1), (2), (5), (9). They stated that they would evaluate if the public interest would override the harms from disclosure.
87	Centre for Internet and Society	Copies of the registry contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (2014-2015). 2. A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit. 3. A list of the registries to whom such notices were served in the last year. 4. An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process. 5. A list of the registries that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time. 6. Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance. 7. Documents which identify the registry operators who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract. 8. Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual non-compliance.	01/09/2015	01/10/2015	Partly	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6)
88	Centre for Internet and Society	a. Copies of the registrar contractual compliance audit reports for all the audits carried out as well as external audit reports from the last year (2014-2015). b. A generic template of the notice served by ICANN before conducting such an audit.17 c. A list of the registrars to whom such notices were served in the last year. d. An account of the expenditure incurred by ICANN in carrying out the audit process. e. A list of the registrars that did not respond to the notice within a reasonable period of time. f. Reports of the site visits conducted by ICANN to ascertain compliance.18 g. Documents which identify the registrars who had committed material discrepancies in the terms of the contract. h. Documents pertaining to the actions taken in the event that there was found to be some form of contractual non-compliance. i. A copy of the registrar self-assessment form which is to be submitted to ICANN	01/09/2015	01/10/2015	Partly	Yes, (3), (5), (6)
89	Centre for Internet and Society	copies of documents showing action taken by ICANN stemming from discrepancies in contractual compliance by Verisign, as revealed from the aforementioned audits	01/09/2015	01/10/2015	Partly, without revealing the individual contracted party audit report	Yes, (3), (5), (6)
90	Centre for Internet and Society	(1) Reports of illegal activity submitted to registrar abuse contacts in the past year (2014- 2015)”; and (2) “Records relating to the action taken by the registrars that have been submitted to ICANN over the past year.	01/09/2015	01/10/2015	No	Yes, (2), (3), (5)
91	Centre for Internet and Society	(1). the names of the 25 people working on contractual compliance as specified by Mr. Chehade in the briefing”; (2) “a copy of the document that calls for appointments to the post of the contractual compliance auditor”; and (3) “the contracts that appoint said individuals as compliance auditors.”	01/09/2015	01/10/2015	Partly, but acknowledged that there might be public interest which overrides the harms caused by disclosure. They're evaluating this, and will get back to me	Yes, (2), (3), (5), (6)
92	Centre for Internet and Society	a document containing the contents of the internal website,” “accessible to the employees and staff of ICANN	01/09/2015	01/10/2015	No	Yes, (1), (2), (3), (5), (6),(8), (9), (11), (12)
93	Mark Seiden	“all information on security incidents reported to ICANN during 2013, 2014, 2015 to date under section 3.20 (iii) of the RAA.”	10/09/2015	10/10/2015	No	Yes, (5), (6)
94	Mark Rodenbaugh, Asia Green IT Systems	All correspondence between any representative of ICANN on the one hand, and on the other hand any purported representative of the OIC, GCC, Lebanon, Indonesia or any other objector to AGIT’s applications for .HALAL and .ISLAM. 2. All records of the NGPC meeting with GAC members in Durban relating to these applications, referenced in the February 7, 2014 letter to AGIT. 3. All documents considered by the Board in coming to its February 5, 2014 resolution and February 7, 2014 letter to AGIT. 4. All documents considered by the Board Governance Committee (BGC) and New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) in rejecting AGIT's Request for Reconsideration of that resolution. 5. All documents regarding any effort by ICANN to facilitate resolution of the purported "conflicts" referenced in the February 7 letter. 6. Provide an entirely unredacted version of both the .AFRICA IRP decision and all documents submitted to and/or considered by the IRP panel in reaching that decision.	10/09/2015	10/10/2015	Partly	Yes, (1), (2), (3), (8), (9)
95	American Institute of Certified Public Accountants	(1) “the connection, experience level and qualification in regard to the targeted community of each of the members of the CPE Panel that were involved in reviewing the Requester’s application and the preparation of the CPE Report;” (2) “policies, guidelines, directives, instructions or guidance given by ICANN or developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit, and/or adhered to by the Community Priority Evaluation Panel relating to the Community Priority Evaluation process;” (3) “statements, documentation, third party input or similar information that has been relied upon by the Community Priority Evaluation Panel, whether or not such information is in the public domain and which has been disclosed to or relied upon by the CPE Panel in connection with the Community Priority Evaluation and the development of the Determination;” (4) “whether Requester’s Change Request, which has been provided to ICANN on December 24, 2014 has been taken in account in developing the Determination and – if so – how the information contained therein was evaluated and which were the views expressed by the Community Priority Evaluation Panel in this regard;” (5) “internal reports, notes, meeting minutes drawn up by or on behalf of ICANN, the Community Priority Evaluation Panels, and other individuals or organizations involved in the Community Priority Evaluation in relation to the Application and the development of the Determination;” and (6) “detailed information in relation to (i) the information reviewed, whether or not included in the Requester’s Application and Change Request, (ii) criteria and standards used, (iii) arguments exchanged, (iv) information disregarded or considered irrelevant, and (v) scores given by the Community Priority Evaluation panel in view of the criteria set out in the Applicant Guidebook, as further detailed [in the Request].”	18/09/2015	18/10/2015	Partially	Yes, (2), (3), (5) , (6), (9)
96	CPA Australia	(1) “the qualifications as regards the global financial community generally and the global CPA community specifically for members of the CPE Panel that were involved in reviewing the Application and producing the Determination;” (2) “the qualifications as regards the global financial community generally and the global CPA community specifically for the members of ICANN staff and/or the ICANN Board that were involved in reviewing and accepting the Determination;” (3) “any internal or unpublished guidelines or notes which were relied upon by the CPE Panel, ICANN or the Economist Intelligence Unit (‘EIU’) generally relating to the definition of the Criterion 2 Nexus;” (4) “any internal or unpublished discussion or notes which were relied upon by ICANN or the EIU in the development of the Determination;” (5) “research or documentation accessed by the CPE Panel in relation to the evaluation of Criterion 2 Nexus for the Application, regardless of whether the information is in the public domain;” and (6) “research or documentation accessed by the CPE Panel in relation to the evaluation of Criterion 2 Nexus for all applications evaluated by the EIU which scored 2 or 3 in in [sic] Criterion 2 Nexus, regardless of whether the information is in the public domain.”	18/09/2015	18/10/2015	Partly	Yes, (2), (3), (6), (9).
97	Don C. Moody, on behalf of Donuts, Inc. and its subsidiary Foggy Sunset, LLC	documentary information relating to the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) of Asia Spa and Wellness Promotion Council Limited’s (ASWPC’s) application for the .SPA gTLD (Application ID: 1-1309-81322) and requests disclosure of: (1) “All letters of support or opposition submitted to ICANN concerning the AWSPC community application for .SPA.” (2) “All documents evidencing the date on which each of the letters responsive to Request No. 1 was submitted to ICANN and became part of the public record for the .SPA CPE decision.” (3) “All documents that evidence or reflect the action taken by the EIU or anyone acting on its behalf to verify each of the letters responsive to Request No. 1, in accordance with the process established by EIU for doing so at page 5 of its August 7, 2014 CPE process document.” (4) “All documents that state, reflect or refer to the basis (if any) upon which the EIU relied, if it did, on any letter responsive to Request No. 1 not publicly submitted to or for ICANN or the EIU on or before February 17, 2015.” (5) “All correspondence and communications between ICANN and the EIU regarding: (i) the AWSPC community application for .SPA; (ii) support for or opposition to the application; and/or (iii) the EIU’s evaluation of the application for community priority.” (6) “All correspondence and communications between ICANN and the Government of Belgium, and/or the City of Spa, regarding .SPA.” (7) “Documents sufficient to identify all persons, whether ICANN staff, Board members or otherwise, who participated in the correspondence and communications referenced in Request No. 6.” (8) “Any and all drafts of the EIU’s CPE report concerning .SPA.”	21/09/2015	21/10/2015	Partly	Yes. (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
98	Bart Lieben	documentary information relating to the second Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) of dotgay LLC’s application for the .GAY gTLD (Application ID: 1- 1713-23699), which was completed and for which a CPE Report was issued on 8 October 2015. (24 requests to this effect)	22/10/2015	21/11/2015	Partly. Also responded to many queries saying that there were no documents responsive to them held by ICANN	Yes. (2), (3), (8), (9), (12).
99	Jeffrey Smith	(1) documentation that approved any new Policies and Procedures at ICANN that contradict the Summary – Principles, Recommendations & Implementation Guidelines in the Final Report from ICANN Generic Names Supporting Organization dated August 8, 2007 - http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm. 2. Documentation that led to the decision of only allowing three strings to be reconsidered at ICDR along with documents approving this decision and method of informing all of the entities that complained of inconsistent results and biased treatment. 3. Documentation that led to the appeals policy for the ICDR Name Similarity issues and the method of informing all of the entities that complained of inconsistent results and biased treatment. 4. Documentation on what led to the decision that applications are subject to name similarity instead of the actual string along with the documents approving this new policy along with the method of informing contention set owners and objectors. 5. Documentation on decisions made on how contention sets will be considered and performed at auction along with documents approving this new policy along with the method of informing contention set owners. 6. All letters and correspondence and communications pertaining to the instructions given to the Name Similarity panel as well as letters and objections to the determination of the Name similarity panel along with responses along with discussions and communication related to dealing the issue. 7. Policies and communications that led to the decision to reduce the allowable time allowed to submit a motion for reconsideration along with documents approving this new policy. 8. Audio Recording of Public Forum meeting on November 15th or 16th, 2000 in Marina del Ray, California which is missing from posted archives - http://wilkins.law.harvard.edu/misc/Static/icann/icann-111400&start=0-30- 06&end=3-46-12.rm along with the board statements for that group of meetings.	17/11/2015	15/12/2015	Partly. Also responded to many queries saying that there were no documents responsive to them held by ICANN	Yes. (2), (3), (5), (8), (9)
100	The Centre for Internet and Society	all transition documents submitted by ICANN, from March 14, 2014 through August 17, 2015, relating to the IANA transition including those that were requested in May 2015 according to NTIA's blog dated August 17, 2015.	30/11/2015	30/12/2015	No, There were no documents responsive to this request	-