Dear eSafety Commissioner,

Under the provisions outlined in the Freedom of Information Act of 1982, I would like to request information that informs the age verification roadmap which was provided to the Australian Government on 31/03/2023 [1].

This information could be; emails between the eSafety Commissioner and service providers, lobbyist and special interest groups groups, internal instant messaging services, SMS, memos, final documents, risk analysis, privacy impact assessments, meeting notes, technical assessments, research papers, news or online articles.

In terms of dates, the range will be: 01/06/2021, the month that the eSafety Commissioner noted in their blog post that work had commenced on the roadmap to 31/03/2023 the date in which the eSafety Commissioner indicated the roadmap had been submitted to the Australian Government.

I am requesting this information because the eSafety Commissioner has failed to be transparent with the Australian public about the contents of this roadmap, who was consulted about Age Verification and the outcomes of any technical assessment or research undertaken to reach their conclusions.

The information should be disclosed as a matter of public interest as it pertains to decisions that may impact what Australians are able to access and say online. By providing this information in a timely manner, it enables the Australian public to participate in a healthy democracy by having all the information to scrutinize and comment on the roadmap and its proposals.

Regards,

Rebecca Trapani

[1] eSafety provides age verification roadmap to Government for consideration https://www.esafety.gov.au/newsroom/medi...

Dear FOI Coordinator,

Thank you for your response, I would like to re-scope my request to the following:

· The Commissioner's personal input in writing into the final form of the roadmap in the three months leading up to its release, including emails, correspondence, diary and calendar entries, and minutes of meetings;
· The roadmap itself and previous drafts of the roadmap, with comments on those drafts;
· A list of third-parties eSafety reached out to for consultation, including vendors;
· A list of research topics or papers that were commissioned by the office for use in development of the roadmap;
· A list of reports and research documents that support the conclusions, recommendations and policies of the age verification roadmap, and any the eSaftey Commissioner’s office are aware of, that contradict the recommendations; and
· Any other documents that support the conclusions in the roadmap including technical assessments.

I would like to exclude information that would require consultation with the third-party, for example personal information, but request that a summary is provided of their contribution to the process, and whether they were a private individual, company, advocacy group.

I would like to exclude information or documents that have already been made public.

If the scope of this request is still too significant, I would appreciate advice on what would be appropriate.

If the office still wishes to refuse this re-scoped request, I ask that the legal basis of this decision be provided, as I believe that this is one of the most historically significant proposed regulations that will impact the usage of the Internet in Australia; and believe there will be significant impact on the nation's public discourse.

Regards,

Rebecca Trapani

Dear FOI Coordinator,

Thank you for your response to my previous email. I would like to extend the consultation process by two weeks to 15 May 2023 to ensure we can settle on a processable scope.

Yours sincerely,

Rebecca Trapani

Dear FOI Coordinator,

Thank you for granting an extension to this request and taking time to consult with your college, given the feedback that the last dot point of my request "Any other documents that support the conclusions in the roadmap including technical assessments." is the one of concern, I would like to reword that one point as two more specific points, one being:
- A list of the material referenced in the roadmap;

As mentioned in your response this would exclude the actual documents owned by third parties and therefore would not require additional consultation. The second being:
- A list of the commercial name and vendor of technical solutions referenced in the roadmap;

My presumption is that any technical solutions referenced, even broadly, for example "image-identification and content filtering technology" which could refer to tools such as PhotoDNA, would have undergone at a minimum, a high-level technical assessment to ensure their were fit for purpose and therefore appropriate recommendations to include the roadmap.

Given this, and that ministers or a government committee reviewing the roadmap would want to know more about these types of tools, the commercial name and vendor of said technical solutions would presumably be readily available to the Office, and not take a substantial diversion of resources to list out.

Finally, given that my request is only for commercial name, and vendor, I make this change under the presumption that the actual documents owned by third parties are not included, therefore no additional consultation is required.

With these changes my full request is as follows:
- The Commissioner's personal input in writing into the final form of the roadmap in the three months leading up to its release, including emails, correspondence, diary and calendar entries, and minutes of meetings;
- The roadmap itself and previous drafts of the roadmap, with comments on those drafts;
- A list of third parties eSafety reached out to for consultation, including vendors;
- A list of research topics or papers that were commissioned by the office for use in development of the roadmap;
- A list of reports and research documents that support the conclusions, recommendations and policies of the age verification roadmap, and any the eSaftey Commissioner’s office are aware of, that contradict the recommendations;
- A list of the material referenced in the roadmap; and,
- A list of the commercial name and vendor of technical solutions referenced in the roadmap.

As per my last revision, I would like to exclude information that would require consultation with the third-party, for example personal information, but request that a summary is provided of their contribution to the process, and whether they were a private individual, company, advocacy group.

I would like to exclude information or documents that have already been made public.

I hope that given these changes we have reached a settled view on the material in scope of this request, and the references requested can be released. I believe my request at this time has been reduced and clarified to a point that that the office can service this request in line with the legal requirements regarding FOI obligations.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Regards,

Rebecca Trapani