The Centre for Internet and Society
http://editors.cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 21 to 27.
DIDP Request #21 - ICANN’s Relationship with the RIRs
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs
<b>At CIS, we wanted a clearer understanding of ICANN’s relationship with the 5 internet registries. The large amount contributed by the RIRs to ICANN’s funding lead us to question the nature of this relationship as well as the payment. We wrote to ICANN asking them for these details.</b>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-9a337482-39e1-3bf5-987c-39a7275c7fd3" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-3-cis-request-30nov15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN’s response linked us to the Memorandum of Understanding signed by ICANN and the Number Resource Organization (NRO) which represents the 5 RIRs. The MoU replaces the ones signed by ICANN and <a class="external-link" href="http://archive.icann.org/en/aso/aso-mou-29oct04.htm">the individual RIRs</a>. The response also links us to a series of letters written by the NRO to ICANN reaffirming their commitment to the MoU. Interestingly, the MoU does not mention anything about payments or monetary contributions.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>In response to the second part of our request focusing on their financial relationship, ICANN gave us the same information as they did earlier. However, as pointed out in this post, that information is either incomplete or inaccurate. Further, they reject the idea that providing anything more than the audited financial reports is necessary for public benefit. According to them, “the burden of compiling the requested documentary information from 2000 to the present would require ICANN to expend a tremendous amount of time and resources.” Therefore, they classified our request as falling under this condition for non-disclosure:<br /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>“Information requests: (i) which are not reasonable; (ii) which are excessive or overly burdensome; (iii) complying with which is not feasible; or (iv) are made with an abusive or vexatious purpose or by a vexatious or <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/didp-2012-02-25-en">querulous individual</a>.”</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>We fail to see how an organization like ICANN does not already have its receipts and documentation in order. If they do, it would not be burdensome to publish them and if they don’t, well, that’s worrying for a lot of different reasons.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-9a337482-39e4-88ef-f261-ef3d9fad1164">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20151130-3-cis-response-30dec15-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-21-icann2019s-relationship-with-the-rirs</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T03:42:36ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #22 - Reconsideration Requests from Parties affected by ICANN Action
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action
<b>According to ICANN by-laws, ICANN has the responsibility to answer to reconsideration requests filed by those directly affected by its actions.</b>
<p>See ICANN <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en#IV">bye-laws here</a></p>
<hr />
<p>The board governance committee must submit an annual report to the board containing the following information (paraphrased):</p>
<ul>
<li>Number and nature of Reconsideration Requests received including an identification of whether they were dismissed, acted upon or are pending.</li>
<li>If pending, the length of time and explanation if they have been pending for more than 90 days.</li>
<li>Explanation of other mechanisms ICANN has made available to ensure its accountability to those <a class="external-link" href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/accountability/reconsideration-en">directly affected by its actions</a>.</li>
</ul>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-4e14eb60-39ec-c7bd-ff52-31efac77cf04">CIS requested copies of documents containing all this information. <span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-1-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-4e14eb60-39ed-055a-ce62-cc9e39003f22"><span>ICANN surmised that all the information we sought can be found in their annual reports. ICANN linked us to those:</span><a href="https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/annual-reports-2012-02-25-en"><span> </span><span>https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/annual-reports-2012-02-25-en</span></a></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-4e14eb60-39ed-3cfa-7ea6-5a3df710332c"><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-1-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p> </p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-22-reconsideration-requests-from-parties-affected-by-icann-action</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T03:52:01ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #23 - ICANN does not Know how Diverse its Comment Section Is
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is
<b>While researching ICANN and the IANA Stewardship Transition Coordination Group (ICG), we came across a diversity analysis report of a public comment section.</b>
<p>See ICG <a class="external-link" href="https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf">report here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-98241daf-39f3-a4ed-02bf-96954e3e93bc">We requested ICANN for similar reports on the ICANN public comment section. <span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-2-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p><span>ICANN stated that they do not conduct diversity analysis on their comment sections. This is a shame, given that the one from ICG was so informative, clear and concise. Instead they provided us with links to reports and analyses of the different topics that were up for comments and an annual report on public comments. </span></p>
<p><span>ICANN’s public comments section is one of the important ways in which different stakeholders and community members get involved with the organization. A diversity analysis of this section for different topics could help in informing the public about which parts of the world actually get involved in ICANN through this mechanism We suggest that ICANN make it a regular part of their report. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-98241daf-3a5b-f097-254d-8f533cb585a7"><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-2-cis-response-14may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-98241daf-3a5c-2285-f58e-b435bb4e9419"><span>https://www.ianacg.org/icg-files/documents/Public-Comment-Summary-final.pdf <br /></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-23-icann-does-not-know-how-diverse-its-comment-section-is</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T05:55:15ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #25 - Curbing Sexual Harassment at ICANN
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann
<b>Markus Kummer at Public Forum 2 mentioned that ICANN has standards of behavior regarding sexual harassment that are applicable for its staff.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="https://meetings.icann.org/en/marrakech55/schedule/thu-public-forum/transcript-public-forum-10mar16-en.pdf">Marrakech Public Forum 2</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In light of that statement, CIS requested ICANN to publish the following information:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Information about the individual or organization conducting ICANN’s sexual harassment training</li>
<li>Materials used during this training</li>
<li>ICANN’s internal sexual harassment policy</li>
</ul>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-fe41cc04-3a6e-cf9f-49f8-133f17ad6466" style="text-align: justify; "><span>The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-4-cis-request-23apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; "><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN’s response answered our questions adequately. The organization conducting their sexual harassment training is <a class="external-link" href="http://www.navexglobal.com/en-us">NAVEX Global</a>. It is an interactive online training and as such, all materials are within that platform. Besides, ICANN could not publish these materials as it would be an infringement of NAVEX Global’s intellectual property right. ICANN also attached with the response, their internal sexual harassment policy.</span></p>
<p dir="ltr" id="docs-internal-guid-fe41cc04-3a6f-624f-fe3b-ddb4b40c7729" style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN's response to our DIDP request (and the attached policy document) may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160423-4-cis-response-21may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>. </span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-25-curbing-sexual-harassment-at-icann</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T06:14:29ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #27 - On ICANN’s support to new gTLD Applicants
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants
<b>In order to promote access to the New gTLD Program in developing regions, ICANN set up the New gTLD Applicant Support Program (Program) which seeks to facilitate cooperation between gTLD applicants from developing countries and those willing and able to support them financially (and in kind).</b>
<p><a class="external-link" href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/non-financial-support">Click for Applicant Support Directory</a></p>
<hr />
<p>We requested ICANN for information about this program. Specifically, we asked them for information on:</p>
<ul>
<li>The number of applicants to the program and the amount received by them;</li>
<li>The basis on which these applicants were selected;</li>
<li>The amount that has been utilized thus far for this program;</li>
<li>Contributions by donors;</li>
<li>What “in kind” support means and includes.</li>
</ul>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-d0a4e7de-3ad0-b071-d564-c2b005d37412">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160426-1-cis-request-26apr16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN answered all our questions in a satisfactory manner. There were three applicants to the program. Two of these: Nameshop, and Ummah Digital Ltd, did not meet the eligibility criteria listed in the handbook and therefore only one other applicant, DotKids, received the financial support. Of the USD 2,000,000 set aside, USD 135,000 was awarded to them.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The eligibility criteria is listed in the New <a class="external-link" href="https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/candidate-support/financial-assistance-handbook-11jan12-en.pdf">gTLD Financial Assistance Handbook</a> and candidates are evaluated by the Support Applicant Review Panel (SARP), “which was comprised of five volunteer members from the community with experience in the domain name industry, in managing small businesses, awarding grants, and assisting others on financial matters in developing countries.”</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>The USD 2,000,000 allotted to this program was set aside by ICANN’s board and as it is not exhausted, no external contributions were sought by ICANN (in cash or in kind). However, ICANN failed to explain what “in kind” contributions would be.</span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-27-on-icann2019s-support-to-new-gtld-applicants</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T08:03:18ZBlog EntryDIDP Request #28 - ICANN renews Verisign’s RZM Contract?
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract
<b>Our request to ICANN was related to our (mistaken) assumption that Verisign and ICANN had signed an agreement for Root Zone Maintenance and had recently renewed it. In that context we had asked for information such as documents reflecting the decision making process, copy of the current RZM agreement, public comments and an audit report of Verisign’s RZM functions.</b>
<p><span id="docs-internal-guid-dc70c719-3ad7-83a2-c0d1-26fed23ada1a">The request filed by Padmini Baruah can be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160502-1-cis-request-02may16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></p>
<h3><span>What ICANN said</span></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>ICANN clarified that it has never been party to the RZM agreement which was made between NTIA and Verisign. According to an ICANN-Verisign joint document, the Root Zone Management Systems allows “ICANN as the IANA Functions Operator (IFO), Verisign, as the Root Zone Maintainer (RZM), and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) at the U.S. Department of Commerce (DoC), as the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/root_zone_administrator_proposal-relatedtoiana_functionsste-final.pdf">Root Zone Administrator</a> (RZA).” The only agreement related to this is the one of cooperation between Verisign and the NTIA.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span>Accordingly, as the role of NTIA is transitioned to the multi-stakeholder community, Verisign and ICANN are working out terms and conditions of their own agreement to facilitate this transition together. In response to NTIA’s request for a proposal for this transition, Verisign and ICANN submitted this document. Besides these, ICANN states that it does not have any documents responsive to our requests.</span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><span id="docs-internal-guid-dc70c719-3ad9-a0d0-e404-48de850f938b">ICANN's response to our DIDP request may be found </span><a href="https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/didp-20160502-1-cis-response-01jun16-en.pdf"><span>here</span></a><span>.</span></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><br /></span></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><span><br /></span></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/didp-request-28-icann-renews-verisign2019s-rzm-contract</a>
</p>
No publisherasvathaICANNDIDPInternet Governance2016-07-30T08:10:17ZBlog EntryICANN’s Documentary Information Disclosure Policy – I: DIDP Basics
http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-2013-i-didp-basics
<b>In a series of blogposts, Vinayak Mithal analyses ICANN's reactive transparency mechanism, comparing it with freedom of information best practices. In this post, he describes the DIDP and its relevance for the Internet community.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) is a non-profit corporation incorporated in the state of California and vested with the responsibility of managing the DNS root, generic and country-code Top Level Domain name system, allocation of IP addresses and assignment of protocol identifiers. As an internationally organized corporation with its own multi-stakeholder community of Advisory Groups and Supporting Organisations, ICANN is a large and intricately woven governance structure. Necessarily, ICANN undertakes through its Bye-laws that “<i>in performing its functions ICANN shall remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness</i>”. While many of its documents, such as its Annual Reports, financial statements and minutes of Board meetings, are public, ICANN has instituted the Documentary Information Disclosure Policy (“DIDP”), which like the RTI in India, is a mechanism through which public is granted access to documents with ICANN which are not otherwise available publicly. It is this policy – the DIDP – that I propose to study.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In a series of blogposts, I propose to introduce the DIDP to unfamiliar ears, and to analyse it against certain freedom of information best practices. Further, I will analyse ICANN’s responsiveness to DIDP requests to test the effectiveness of the policy. However, before I undertake such analysis, it is first good to know what the DIDP is, and how it is crucial to ICANN’s present and future accountability.</p>
<h3><strong>What is the DIDP?</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the core values of the organization as enshrined under Article I Section 4.10 of the Bye-laws note that “in performing its functions ICANN shall remain accountable to the Internet community through mechanisms that enhance ICANN’s effectiveness”. Further, Article III of the ICANN Bye-laws, which sets out the transparency standard required to be maintained by the organization in the preliminary, states - “ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Accordingly, ICANN is under an obligation to maintain a publicly accessible website with information relating to its Board meetings, pending policy matters, agendas, budget, annual audit report and other related matters. It is also required to maintain on its website, information about the availability of accountability mechanisms, including reconsideration, independent review, and Ombudsman activities, as well as information about the outcome of specific requests and complaints invoking these mechanisms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Pursuant to Article III of the ICANN Bye-laws for Transparency, ICANN also adopted the DIDP for disclosure of publicly unavailable documents and publish them over the Internet. This becomes essential in order to safeguard the effectiveness of its international multi-stakeholder operating model and its accountability towards the Internet community. Thereby, upon request made by members of the public, ICANN undertakes to furnish documents that are in possession, custody or control of ICANN and which are not otherwise publicly available, provided it does not fall under any of the defined conditions for non-disclosure. Such information can be requested via an email to <a href="mailto:didp@icann.org">didp@icann.org</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Procedure</strong></h3>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Upon the receipt of a DIDP request, it is reviewed by the ICANN staff.</li>
<li>Relevant documents are identified and interview of the appropriate staff members is conducted.</li>
<li>The documents so identified are then assessed whether they come under the ambit of the conditions for non-disclosure.
<ul>
<li>Yes - A review is conducted as to whether, under the particular circumstances, the public interest in disclosing the documentary information outweighs the harm that may be caused by such disclosure. </li>
<li>Documents which are considered as responsive and appropriate for public disclosure are posted on the ICANN website.</li>
<li>In case of request of documents whose publication is appropriate but premature at the time of response then the same is indicated in the response and upon publication thereafter, is notified to the requester.</li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<h3><strong>Time Period and Publication </strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The response to the DIDP request is prepared by the staff and is made available to the requestor within a period of 30 days of receipt of request via email. The Request and the Response is also posted on the DIDP page <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency">http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency</a> in accordance with the posting guidelines set forth at <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/didp">http://www.icann.org/en/about/transparency/didp</a>.</p>
<h3><strong>Conditions for Non-Disclosure</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are certain circumstances under which ICANN may refuse to provide the documents requested by the public. The conditions so identified by ICANN have been categorized under 12 heads and includes internal information, third-party contracts, non-disclosure agreements, drafts of all reports, documents, etc., confidential business information, trade secrets, information protected under attorney-client privilege or any other such privilege, information which relates to the security and stability of the internet, etc.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Moreover, ICANN may refuse to provide information which is not designated under the specified conditions for non-disclosure if in its opinion the harm in disclosing the information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. Further, requests for information already available publicly and to create or compile summaries of any documented information may be declined by ICANN.</p>
<h3><strong>Grievance Redressal Mechanism </strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In certain circumstances the requestor might be aggrieved by the response received and so he has a right to appeal any decision of denial of information by ICANN through the Reconsideration Request procedure or the Independent Review procedure established under Section 2 and 3 of Article IV of the ICANN Bye-laws respectively. The application for review is made to the Board which has designated a Board Governance Committee for such reconsideration. The Independent Review is done by an independent third-party of Board actions, which are allegedly inconsistent with the Articles of Incorporation or Bye-laws of ICANN.</p>
<h3><strong>Why does the DIDP matter?</strong></h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The breadth of ICANN’s work and its intimate relationship to the continued functioning of the Internet must be appreciated before our analysis of the DIDP can be of help. ICANN manages registration and operations of generic and country-code Top Level Domains (TLD) in the world. This is a TLD:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/TLD.jpg/@@images/1bb21859-d1aa-41c6-b5e0-4041ae099f54.jpeg" alt="TLD" class="image-inline" title="TLD" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">(<i>Source</i>: <a class="external-link" href="http://geovoices.geonetric.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/parts_of_a_domain_name.jpg">here</a>)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Operation of many gTLDs, such as .com, .biz or .info, is under contract with ICANN and an entity to which such operation is delegated. For instance, Verisign operates the .com Registry. Any organization that wishes to allow others to register new domain names under a gTLD (sub-domains such as ‘benefithealth’ in the above example) must apply to ICANN to be an ICANN-accredited Registrar. GoDaddy, for instance, is one such ICANN-accredited Registrar. Someone like you or me, who wants to get our own website – say, vinayak.com – buys from GoDaddy, which has a contract with ICANN under which it pays periodic sums for registration and renewal of individual domain names. When I buy from an ICANN-accredited Registrar, the Registrar informs the Registry Operator (say, Verisign), who then adds the new domain name (vinayak.com) to its registry list, and then it can be accessed on the Internet.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">ICANN’s reach doesn’t stop here, technically. To add a new gTLD, an entity has to apply to ICANN, after which the gTLD has to be added to the root file of the Internet. The root file, which has the list of all TLDs (or all ‘legitimate’ TLDs, some would say), is amended by Verisign under its tripartite contract with the US Government and ICANN, after which Verisign updates the file in its ‘A’ <a href="http://root-servers.org/">root server</a>. The other 12 root servers use the same root file as the Verisign root server. Effectively, this means that <i>only </i>ICANN-approved TLDs (and all sub-domains such as ‘benefithealth’ or ‘vinayak’) are available across the Internet, on a global scale. Or at least, ICANN-approved TLDs have the most and widest reach. ICANN similarly manages country-code TLDs, such as .in for India, .pk for Pakistan or .uk for the United Kingdom.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All of this leads us to wonder whether the extent of ICANN’s voluntary and reactive transparency is sufficient for an organization of such scale and impact on the Internet, perhaps as much impact as the governments do. In the next post, I will analyse the DIDP’s conditions for non-disclosure of information with certain freedom of information best practices.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Vinayak Mithal is a final year student at the Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab. His interests lie in Internet governance and other aspects of tech law, which he hopes to explore during his internship at CIS and beyond. He may be reached at vinayakmithal@gmail.com.</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-2013-i-didp-basics'>http://editors.cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/icann2019s-documentary-information-disclosure-policy-2013-i-didp-basics</a>
</p>
No publisherVinayak MithalInternet GovernanceAccountabilityICANNDIDPTransparency2014-07-01T13:01:34ZBlog Entry