[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Contribution on Transparency Reforms for CCWG

[Kavouss Arasteh]

Dear Bruce,
Once again tks for info.
Could the involvements of 
Ombudsman could be further enforce by being  assisted by the representative of the community selected by CCWG ch- charrs or be the entity replace that organ among 7 experts nominated by each SO and AC
Ombudsman involvement seems to be enforced by the community 
Representative
Regsrds
Kavoudd 
Sent from my iPhone

> On 29 Oct 2015, at 13:04, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Hello Paul,
> 
> . >>  The DIDP policies have not facilitated transparency to the extent that many of the community feel is needed. The vast majority of DIDP requests have been denied based on several analyses. There is insufficient means of independent appeal as you note. The recommendation is to tighten the exemptions and provide independent means for appealing DIDP denials. 
> 
> No doubt the DIDP process can be improved however it is not true that the vast majority of requests have resulted in denials.
> 
> I asked the staff for some statistics, and they responded that since the establishment of DIDP, 96 requests have been submitted. ICANN responds to every single request. 
> 
> o In 66 cases, ICANN was able to refer the requestor to documents already publicly available.   This speaks to ICANN's commitment to making as many documents publicly available as possible.
> 
> o In 22 cases, ICANN published additional documents. 
> 
> The appeal mechanism currently is to the Board's reconsideration process - but perhaps this is something that a role like the Ombudsman could perform.
> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community