[ALAC] Fwd: NCSG Appeal of ICANN Secrecy Claim Over Information Shaping ICANN Staff Policy Decision to Create New Rights for Trademark Holders in DNS
Alan Greenberg
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Mon Sep 9 22:49:51 UTC 2013
At 09/09/2013 05:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Is there any interest in supporting this -- or at least understanding the
>issues better?
>
>This could be seen as a significan A&T issue. Regardless of one's view of
>the merits of the trandmark claims mechanism, the lack of transparency in
>developing this serious implementation issue is potentially a serious point
>of concern.
>
>- Evan
I have not gone over the request or response in any detail, but on
the surface, the response may be pretty close to being in line with
the policy. Perhaps more subject to the issue of A&T is whether the
terms of the DIDP as quoted in the response (and in the policy at
http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/didp) are reasonable, and
if it is reasonable to expect staff to quote WHICH reason is used in
each denial.
Even just using the exclusions of "if disclosed [...] likely to
compromise [...] ICANN's deliberative process by inhibiting the
candid exchange of ideas and communications..." and "Information
requests that are [...] overly burdensome...", you cover a pretty
large swath of internal documents. And lots of room for judgement calls.
I can sympathize with all of those rationales, but at the same time,
have to ask if the end-result is what was intended when this policy
was put in place; or perhaps more to the point, what the community
THOUGHT this policy was all about when it was put in place.
Alan
More information about the ALAC
mailing list