Public Comment is a vital part of our multistakeholder model. It provides a mechanism for stakeholders to have their opinions and recommendations formally and publicly documented. It is an opportunity for the ICANN community to effect change and improve policies and operations.
Контент доступен только на следующих языках
Submissions for this Proceeding
Proposed Revisions to the ICANN Documentary Information Disclosure Policy
View this Proceeding
Search Public Comment Submissions For This Proceeding
To search for keywords within Public Comment submissions documents or pages, type in the keyword and press Enter after each selection.
Please find attached (PDF) the ALAC Statement on the ICANN Documentary Information Disclosure Policy.
ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community
We oppose the proposed changes, and detail the reasons in the attached PDF. Rather than increasing transparency, the proposed changes would achieve the exact opposite, contrary to the WS2 recommendations and ICANN's Bylaws.
The proposed updates continue to reflect a legacy, prescriptive approach to requirements that do not reflect the dynamic nature of ICANN.
Rather than the proposed prescriptive approach, The BC recommends an outcomes-based regime.
In such an approach, the goal is transparency. Simply put, any document held by ICANN Org can be requested. Anyone requesting document access should receive a written response within 30 days.
If the ...
The Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) welcomes the opportunity to comment on proposed updates to ICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Process (DIDP) and provided feedback on the question.
Updating ICANN’s DIDP process will enhance the transparency and accountability, I therefore support the proposed changes
Under the proposed revisions to the DIDP process, it will ultimately reduce ICANN transparency and accountability. We do not agree with these changes.
The new proposed changes give ICANN tremendously more leeway to not disclose or redact information under extremely generic “catch all” rationale. Updating ICANN’s DIDP process in this manner is not appropriate and going in the wrong direction.
We submit our comments on the Revised Policy because the policy raises significant concerns about ICANN’s commitment to transparency. ICANN has obligations towards the Internet community, such as operating “for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole” and “to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner[,]” and employing “open, transparent and bottom-up, multistakeholder policy development processes.” In lin...