Dear Department of Finance,

Please supply:

[In relation to items in the section "Decision" of FOi 22/54]

1. the Sponsorship Agreement between auDA and Finance (suitably redacted where necessary) but which must include all terms and references relating to confidential information and any such requirements as they might apply to the domain names themselves

2. the Registry-Registrar Agreement between Identity Digital and Finance; (suitably redacted where necessary) but which must include all terms and references relating to confidential information and any such requirements as they might apply to the domain names themselves

3. the outbound consultation with auDA and Identity Digital

4. and the joint submissions made by auDA and Identity Digital

[in relation to the Background or any other part of FOi 22/54]

5. all outbound correspondence in which I am mentioned (by name or otherwise) and/or which my FoI 22/54 is mentioned or related to, since (and including) the date of my filing of my FoI, upto and including the moment you fulfill this request.

6. all inbound correspondence in response to items 3 and 5 above, or in which I am mentioned (by name or otherwise) and/or which my FoI 22/54 is mentioned or related to.

7. The "information" cited in your statement "inconsistent with the information that has been provided directly to Finance by Identity Digital." in relation to my statement: "The best way to fulfil my request is to get in touch with Afilias Australia Pty Ltd. I've opened a case with them, and all they need from you is the approval to send me the list." which related to the following:-

Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2022 07:21:00 +0000 (GMT)
From: ".au Support" <[email address]>
Sender: [email address]
Subject: [.au Support - Case #01239018] The “master list” of gov.au public domain names.

Hi Chris,

Since you need report on gov.au domains you need to contact the registrar Department of Finance-.au. You can either get this report for them or if they request us to send it, we are happy to send the report to the registrar. But, it should be requested by the registrar's authorised contact.

Should you require further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us and include the string: ref:_00DD0CWb4._5004G2Ri8xw:ref in the body of all future correspondence with regards to this ticket. To do so, you may simply reply to this message.

Sincerely,

Abhinav Vatsavaya
.au Support
Web Portal: https://portal.afilias.info/
Email: [email address]
Phone: +61-3-9945-0650 (Australia)
Phone: +1-416-619-3038 (North America)

8. The complete document and/or transcript chain, and all specified "objections" mentioned in your statement "In considering whether or not the Master List should be released to you, Finance consulted with both auDA and Identity Digital who jointly objected to the disclosure of the Master List.". I want to know what you said to them, which made them (according to you) change their minds (see their letter to me above) - so be sure that what you did say to them is included in your response.

9. The complete and current list of public-facing government .au domain names (no other information, just the domain names). Note that this used to be publicly available on assorted government web sites, but those URLs (e.g. https://data.gov.au/dataset/a-z-list-of-... ) are now returning 404-not-found errors. Previous FoI requests to this information have been granted (e.g. https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/l... )

Yours faithfully,

C Drake

Dear FOI Requests,

No charges should be imposed for my request for the following reasons:

Some of my request relates to information about myself (items 5, 6, and 7) which are exempt from charges.

Items 3, 4 and 8 almost certainly also relate to information about myself (they were generated as a result of my request)

Item 9 is immediately available via numerous mean and takes no more than a 5 minute phone call, or 5 minute email, to make available to me if desired.

Items 1 through 8 have ALREADY been "located" and used in connection with my earlier FoI request for which no fees were levied. It would be improper to charge me for work that has already taken place, or to charge "search" for items that are already "found", or to charge me for "decision" time on these items (see below).

I contend that the information I am seeking will reveal impropper behavior of FoI officer(s) in connection with my earlier request, and will show them taking steps to prevent the disclosure of information to me by negotiating with a formerly agreeable 3rd party and convincing them to raise an improper objection, or it will reveal that an FoI officer has told lies in support of rejecting a previous FoI request and has alleged the false existence or meaning of documents or intent. It is absolutely improper to charge me so that an FoI officer can spend time redacting and fighting against the release of documents which will almost certainly reveal improper behavior of that FoI officer. Accordingly:-

THE IMPOSITION OF CHARGES FOR THIS SEARCH ARE UNDENIABLY AN ATTEMPT TO DISCOURAGE MY FoI REQUEST.

If you refuse to withdraw this charge request, I require a detailed breakdown of the costs involved for each process of my items 1 through 9, along with an explanation as to why search and decision time might be required (taking into account the fact that all these documents were already used in support of rejecting my earlier FoI request) so that I can check that the breakdowns are honest, allowable and genuine.

I'm happy to pay any *genuine* charges if it result in the release of item 9, and I'm also happy to pay any charges on the condition that I receive a full refund, along with supply of item 9, if an independent arbitrar believes that improper conduct has occurred based on the release (or non-release) of items 1 through 8.

Yours sincerely,

C Drake

Dear FOI Requests,

I request a review of the decision to charge fees for my FoI request on the following grounds:-

1. This topic is a matter of public debate (including multiple published refused FoI requests on the "righttoknow" website).

2. My request relates to the topic of "agency decision making", in particular, its disingenuous behavior in respect to denying FoI request for public-interest information (government web sites) by using:
a) multiple inappropriate means (including deliberately misrepresenting legal status), and
b) multiple different and changing excuses, and
c) by making outgoing requests to formerly agreeable stakeholders in order to change their support, and
d) obsequiously pretending you cannot "identify" me (the person who made the FoI request) for the purposes of working out what documents relate to me in the context of those generated by your officers during their contact with the third parties involved in my FoI request, and seeking to change their support of my request.

3. My request specifically seeks to reveal to the public as to why or how the previous refusal decision was made, including highlighting any problems or flaws that occurred in the decision making process: specifically - the fact that your department is using an external third party to perform the duties of your department (maintain the list of government domains) and you are using the fact that this third party is performing your department duties as an excuse to deny FoI access by pretending that confidentiality documents between your department and this entity apply to the information which your department administers in such as way as to prevent its release to the public.

The public deserve to know the tricks your department uses to avoid scrutiny, so we can take appropriate steps to restore our right to know what you're doing.

4. My request satisfies practically all of section 4.190 (including proposed legislation, public debate, inquiry submission, and so forth).

5. Your department has made the advanced decision NOT to release one or more items in my request, including the one you know for certain that I most want to receive (the domain list), and has nevertheless decided to levy a fee knowing full-well in advance that you will not be providing me with access to the document even if/when I pay this fee. Charging for an item that you have no intent to release is fraud.

6. I have zero confidence that you have any genuine intent to release any of the controversial documents or other records (most likely phone recordings, since telephone seems a likely means used in this instance to avoid leaving records) that were used to convince the third party to change their tune from "happy to let me have the list" to "object" and/or have been used to threaten the third party into not allowing my access to them. Again - this FoI request relates to misbehavior of your own staff in carrying out their FoI obligations to the public: charging me for items which you know in advance you will not be releasing is fraudulent.

7. I was extremally disappointed that my review of my first request for this domain list upheld the refusal, especially since it's such an absurd idea that a department can simply draft a contract to make government data "confidential" and then use that to deny an FoI request.
It makes it clear that the officer who processed my review is sympathetic to the officer who refused my request, and was not acting impartially, nor in the best interests of the public or the spirit of the FoI act.
Accordingly, I request that this, my request for another review, be carried out by a different representative who has not previously refused (or withheld a refusal) my access to department records, and one who will act in the interest of the public, the spirit of the FoI, and without sympathy or allegiance to the former FoI officers involved in this dispute.

Yours sincerely,

C Drake

Dear FOI Requests,

I seek an internal review of the FOI 22/85 charges decision on the grounds that fees should not be charged in this case for multiple reasons, including (but not limited to) the overwhelming applicability of section 4.109 for (at least) the reasons I identified in my previous email and below.

Be aware that I've filed another FoI for the same original content (list of domains) making clear that I don't care what source you acquire the list from (since your original rejection was obsequiously based on confidentiality with 3rd parties). I'm willing to drop this review request and FOI 22/85 if you supply the list (I don't want to waste your time or appear vexatious - I just want the domain list which was (at least for a decade or more) published in full in the past: I have no idea why you're fighting so hard to block this formerly-available information from being made available once again).

I strongly recommend you carefully read my new request and the reasons for wanting access to this information, reasons which I hereby incorporate by reference into this review: https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/w...

Yours sincerely,

C Drake