DIDP Analysis
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
£
%
123
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
1
RequesterInformation soughtDate requestedDate repliedDocuments disclosed?Exceptions Clause invoked?
2
Danny YoungerCopies of RAAs for Brandon Grey Internet Services Inc., DBA Namejuice.com, EstDomains.Inc24/09/200824/10/2008PartlyYes, (5)
3
Brian KrebsOfficers listed on the RAA Agreement between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphin Inc.21/11/200822/12/2008NoNo
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 TLD06/02/200906/03/2009NoInvoked the Defined Conditions for Non-Disclosure without mentioning anything specific.
5
Edward HasbrouckCopies of documents relating to the Independent Review Process06/03/200903/04/2009NoYes, (2), (12)
6
Edward HasbrouckDocumentation relatig to the ICANN Ombudsman and his appointment03/04/200906/05/2009No (said the information was publicly available)No
7
Tim RuizForm 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
08/05/200905/06/2009PartlyYes, (2), (4), (5), (6), (11), (12)
8
Victoria McEvedyQuestions:
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.
17/09/200916/10/2009PartiallyYes, (4), (6)
9
Alejandra Barrientosthe documentation refering to the RFC 1591.3
item 2
25/09/200925/09/2009Yes. 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.”
29/04/201028/05/2010Yes. 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 PalageDocuments relating to an agreement between
ICANN and the
New South Wales
government regarding
funding of ICANN Sydney's
office
24/06/201022/07/2010NoYes, (1), (5)
12
Barry Carterlist of all registered domains (including all public registrant information)20/08/201019/09/2010Partially. Directed the requestor towards whatever was publicly available, but did not disclose most of it on grounds of excessive breadthYes. (12)
13
Diane DukeDocumentation pertaining to ICM's application for the .xxx TLD08/09/201007/10/2010NoYes, (5)
14
Evan Leibovitch and Avri DoriaStaff report to the Board retreat on the issue of the new gTLD Applicatn support27/09/201027/10/2010NoNo
15
Iliya Bazlyankov1. 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.
01/12/201030/10/2010NoYes. (2), (3), (5), (11)
16
Jorge Sabatelist 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.
07/12/201006/01/2011Partly, to the extent publicly availableYes, (12)
17
Denise SubramaniamBased 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


08/12/201008/12/2010PartlyNo
18
Michael Palagei) 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."
10/03/201109/04/2011PartlyYes, (5), (8), (9), (10),
19
Kieren McCarthyi) 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 2011.16/03/201115/04/2011YesNo
20
Diane DukeDocumentation relating to the IFFOR and the ICM Registry's contracts for labelling and monitoring11/04/201111/05/2011NoNo
21
Michael Palagei) 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.


27/04/201126/05/2010YesNo
22
Kevin MurphyDocuments 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
23/05/201122/06/2011PartlyNo
23
Kieren McCarthyScorecard with respect to the status of implementation of the ATRT 13/06/201113/07/2011partially/mentioned it was part of a reportNo
24
John Bell, The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition1. 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.
08/07/201105/08/2011Partially. 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 KeenerCopy of RAA Agreement between ICANN and Dynamic Dolphins Inc. as well as names on the application 10/08/201109/09/2011YesNo
26
Kieren McCarthyList of Board Meetings , and their agendas and minutes, between 29 July 2011 and 16 August 201120/08/201119/09/2011YesNo
27
Paul McGradyRequest sought recordings and transcripts from meetings from May 2009 to the present, and meetings of the ccNSO were not required.
02/09/201102/10/2011NoYes, (1)
28
Michael PalageIn 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?


16/09/201116/10/2011PartlyNo
29
Kieren McCarthyi) 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."
19/09/201120/09/2011NoNo
30
Kieren McCarthyDocumentation and logs relating to ICANN's internal action pertaining certain DIDP requests20/10/201119/11/2011NoYes, (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."
20/10/201120/09/2011NoYes, (2)
32
Kieren McCarthyDocumentation relating to ICANN's Whistleblower policy27/10/201126/11/2011NoYes, (4), (6), (8)
33
R. Shawn GunnarsonResponse to DIDP request by Kieren McCarthy29/11/201129/11/2011YesNo
34
R. Shawn Gunnarsoni) 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)"

07/12/201106/01/2012NoNo
35
George Todorofflist of the six DNS stability panel members that reviewed and subsequently rejected the Bulgarian IDN ccTLD fast-­‐track application
in 2010.
17/01/201216/02/2014NoYes, (2), (3), (5), (11)
36
George KirikosCopy of all correspondence submitted to ICANN in the past 24 months (from this request) that the staff have censored from the correspondence page15/03/201213/04/2012NoYes, (12)
37
John Bell, The .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalitiondocuments, 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
03/04/201203/05/2012Partially. The requester has been directed to publicly available information on the concerned arbitrationYes. (1) (2), (4), (5), (6), (7)
38
Phil CorwinInformation on a 175k budget item in the Draft FY13 budget regarding a summit on the URS Process29/05/201228/06/2012NoYes. (5), (8), (9)
39
David MaherAgreement for provision of Trademark Clearinghouse services, documents relating to claims of ownership of IPRs, functional/technical specification documents08/08/201207/09/2012NoYes, (5), (6), (8), (11)
40
George KirikosICANN's updated litigation and IRP page27/09/201227/11/2012Yes, was not exactly a DIDPNo
41
Kieren McCarthyImplementation report for recommendation 23 of the ATRT review27/10/201226/11/2012YesNo
42
Igor Petrenkoa list of all registered domains and reasons for refusal29/01/201328/02/2013Partly, to the extent publicly availableYes, (12)
43
Mary BlasyDocuments relating to Verisign's renewal of the .com domain name registry agreement, including communications with the US government's Department of Commerce and Justice05/02/201313/03/2013No. 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 partiesYes. (1), (2), (3), (5), (8), (9)
44
Garth Bruen9 Requests on tickets submitted through the WDPRS seeking correspondence between ICANN and the Registrars, internal communication etc.05/02/201307/03/2013No, beyond directing the requester to a generic zone file access programme available onlineYes. (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9)
45
Oksana PrykhodkoDocuments pertaining to information on the delegation of the IDN ccTLD .ykp to
Ukraine
26/03/201324/04/2013Partly, to the extent publicly availableYes, (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
28/03/201327/04/2014PartlyYes, (3), (5), (6), (8), (9), (11)
47
Kevin MurphyRecordings and transcripts of all the strawmen meetings in Belgium and Los Angeles in November 2012 relating to the Trademark Clearinghouse13/04/201313/05/2013No, but said would be posted on the ICANN WebsiteNo
48
Thomas Indelicarto, VerisignCommunication 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 public22/04/201319/06/2013NoYes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9) , (10), (12)
49
George KirikosICANN's BFC page to be updated with current ICANN minutes, + the IRS form 990 submitted by ICANN for the period ending 30 June 201207/05/201316/05/2013No. Said would be out in the public domain, and it has been doneNo
50
George KirikosDocuments related to the working of the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services26/06/201326/07/2013PartiallyYes, (2), (3), (5), (9)
51
NCSG1. 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
24/07/201324/08/2013PartiallyYes, (1), (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (11), (12)
52
Mathilde FrisonExchanges 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 RAA10/08/201309/09/2013NoYes, (2), (9)
53
Kelsey Brittondisclosure 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.
13/01/201412/02/2014NoNo
54
CompwizCommunications from Network Solutions to ICANN and vice versa for COMPWIZ.COM20/03/201419/04/2013No. Also said that the public interest does not outweigh the harmYes. (2), (3), (5), (6), (8), (9)
55
Lord Alan WatsonI.
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."
20/03/201419/04/2014PartlyYes, (2), (5), (6), (9), (11)
56
George Kirikosdisclosure of ICANN’s unredacted Form 990 for the period ending 30 June 201115/05/201414/06/2014YesNo
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
23/05/201420/06/2014Partly, to the extent publicly availableYes, (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
04/08/201403/09/2014NoYes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
59
Dot Registry LLCa copy of the contract between ICANN and
the EIU, which serves as the sole evaluator for CPEs
04/09/201403/10/2014NoYes, (2), (5), (6)
60
fTLD Registry Servies LLCa 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
17/09/201416/10/2014NoYes, also mentions By-Law limitation. (2), (6)
61
Bart LiebenDocuments relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process26/09/201424/10/2014PartiallyYes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
62
Michael Palagei) 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.
30/09/201430/10/2014PartiallyYes, (5), (6), (11)
63
Kevin Murphyletter from Rod Beckstrom to Maria Del Rosario Guerra dated December 1, 200921/10/201420/11/2014Partially (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 LevyDocuments relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process22/10/201431/10/2014PartiallyYes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
65
Bart LiebenDocuments relating to the Community Priority Evaluation Process22/10/201431/10/2014PartiallyYes, (2), (3), (5), (6), (9)
66
Centre for Internet and SocietyExpenses relating to Travels and Meetings for the years 1999-2014 incurred by ICANN, and its affiliates etc18/12/201416/01/2015PartiallyYes, (12).
67
Centre for Internet and SocietyDetails of ICANN's income from domain names between 1999-201422/12/201421/01/2015PartiallyYes, (12).
68
Centre for Internet and SocietyDetails of cyber attacks suffered by ICANN since 199924/12/201423/01/2015NoYes. (1), (2), (6), (8), (9), (12)
69
Centre for Internet and SocietyDetails of the cases that have been decided by the ICANN Ombudsman26/12/201427/01/2015No.Yes. (2), (8), (9), (12)
70
Centre for Internet and SocietyInformation pertaining to the implementation of the NETMundial Principles27/12/201427/01/2015No. 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 SocietyInformation pertaining to the Global Advisory Groups12/01/201511/02/2015YesNo
72
Centre for Internet and SocietyInformation relating to the gTLD programme auction 12/01/201509/02/2015YesNo
73
Centre for Internet and SocietyOrganogram sought to explain ICANN's internal heirarchy as well as names of ICANN Staff13/01/201511/02/2015YesNo
74
Centre for Internet and SocietyExpenses incurred by ICANN towards the NETMundial Initiative13/01/201512/02/2015PartiallyYes. (2), (3), (4), (6), (9), (12)
75
Guru Acharyadisclosure 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
20/01/201519/02/2015Partially. ICANN has committed to publishing a successor contract. However, no direct response to the query in questionYes. (1), (2), (3), (9)
76
Centre for Internet and SocietyDetails of contract fees paid by the RIRs from 1999-201406/02/201508/03/2015YesNo
77
Kin SunDocuments relating to domain name Yuetu.com11/02/201513/03/2015NoYes. (3), (5)
78
James GannonDisclosure of Root Zone KSK Operator Function Termination Plan specified in Section C.7.3 Plan for Transition to Successor Contractor12/03/201525/03/2015NoYes. (1), (2), (3), (9), (10)
79
James GannonDisclosure 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
14/03/201525/03/2015NoYes. (1), (3), (6), (10), (11),
80
Paul KaneWorkflow process documents with statistics for each stage of the IANA Root Zone Management Function07/04/201507/05/2015NoYes. (1), (2), (3), (6) (8), (9), (10), (11)
81
James BridleDocuments relating to the delegation and operation of the .io domain name, including correspondence between ICANN and the delegate and other information27/04/201527/05/2015PartiallyYes, (1), (2), (3), (9), (10)
82
Flip PetillionInformation relating to the Data Exposure issue in the new gTLD application and GDD portals first reported on 1 March 201505/06/201505/07/2015PartiallyYes,(2), (5), (6), (8), (9), (10)
83
Edward MorrisDocumentation relating to ICANN's relationship with Westlake Governance Ltd. with respect to the review of the GNSO17/07/201514/08/2015PartiallyYes, (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (11)
84
Centre for Internet and SocietyDocuments relating to ICANN's effort to implement the NETmundial Initiative22/07/201521/08/2015NoYes, (1). (2), (3), (6), (8), (9), (12)
85
Centre for Internet and Societyraw data with respect to income/revenue statements of ICANN from 1999-200122/07/201521/08/2015NoYes, (12)
86
Kevin Murphydocumentation relating to the IRP matter of DotConnect Africa v. ICANN27/07/201526/08/2015PartiallyYes, (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 SocietyCopies 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.
01/09/201501/10/2015PartlyYes, (2), (3), (5), (6)
88
Centre for Internet and Societya. 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
01/09/201501/10/2015PartlyYes, (3), (5), (6)
89
Centre for Internet and Societycopies of documents showing action taken by
ICANN stemming from discrepancies in contractual compliance by Verisign, as
revealed from the aforementioned audits
01/09/201501/10/2015Partly, without revealing the individual contracted party audit reportYes, (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.
01/09/201501/10/2015NoYes, (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.”
01/09/201501/10/2015Partly, 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 Societya document containing the contents of the internal website,”
“accessible to the employees and staff of ICANN
01/09/201501/10/2015NoYes, (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.”
10/09/201510/10/2015NoYes, (5), (6)
94
Mark Rodenbaugh, Asia Green IT SystemsAll 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.
10/09/201510/10/2015PartlyYes, (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].”
18/09/201518/10/2015PartiallyYes, (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.”
18/09/201518/10/2015PartlyYes, (2), (3), (6), (9).
97
Don C. Moody, on behalf of Donuts, Inc. and its subsidiary Foggy Sunset, LLCdocumentary 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.”
21/09/201521/10/2015PartlyYes. (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)
22/10/201521/11/2015Partly. Also responded to many queries saying that there were no documents responsive to them held by ICANNYes. (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.
17/11/201515/12/2015Partly. Also responded to many queries saying that there were no documents responsive to them held by ICANNYes. (2), (3), (5), (8), (9)
100
The Centre for Internet and Societyall 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, 2015.30/11/201530/12/2015No, There were no documents responsive to this request-
Loading...