<html><head></head><body>Hi,<div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I believe that some risks have been conflated in the draft NCSG response. The draft PTI Strategic Plan didn’t identify evolving data privacy regulation as a community-related risk. Rather, the risk identified was a stand-alone issue unrelated to the development of policy recommendations by the community. What PTI seems to believe may be a risk is the fact that an evolution in the data privacy regulation landscape exists to begin with. I think they’re very wrong in considering this a risk at all.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I’m wading into territory that I have little understanding of, so please correct me if I’m mistaken, but the PTI’s concerns with an erosion of its trust and accountability should be focused on how its direct customers perceive its trustworthiness and accountability. If PTI’s customers are gTLD and ccTLD Registry Operators and Registrars, then where is the erosion of trust it refers to coming from?</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">The way I see it, privacy/data protection laws have in the past not been sufficiently enforceable or harmonized, and that has had a negative impact on the certainty of the environment in which Registries and Registrars have operated. Now that it has changed, there is a more solid understanding of (or a more solid desire to understand and comply with) these laws and regulations.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">PTI’s own customers are themselves working towards variable degrees of changes to the way in which they operate to comply with these regulations, and there’s no reason why PTI should perceive this as a threat. The only threat in this context that I can see is for PTI’s customers to not comply with regulations, and cause damage both to themselves and the Registrants they serve. This should still have no impact on PTI’s role in carrying out the IANA functions, as far as I can tell. Unless there’s more to this potential “risk” that I don’t understand, it reads a little like hyperbole to me. PTI should probably just focus on continuing to serve its customers, and stay out of issues it is not mandated to deal with.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Community-related risks in the draft operating plan and budget are another matter altogether, and I don’t understand the level of true risks involved, but would not discount them out-of-hand. For example, one community-related risk identified was simply the workload created by new policies developed by the community, and the possibility of PTI lacking the capacity to keep up with this workload. If this is a real issue, then it is right for PTI to flag it, and take the necessary steps to mitigate against it.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Another community-related risk identified is the concern that PTI will be unable to meet all the community’s <i class="">“expectations and community deliverables due to dependency on ICANN Operating Plan and Budget”</i>. Again…, I don’t know if this is actually an issue, or not, but they’ve flagged it, so worth looking in to. If ICANN’s Operating Plan and Budget is a constraint on PTI’s ability to perform the IANA functions to the satisfaction of its customers, then something will clearly need to be done about it. If it is an exaggeration, and things may proceed without incident, then grand. I really don’t know, but I’m sure others here do.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">In any case, I don’t see PTI setting itself up to be an arbiter on policy recommendations developed by the community in any way. I don’t believe this is the risk or concern that they are trying to convey.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I hope this helps.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Amr<br class=""/><div><br class=""/><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On May 23, 2020, at 2:15 AM, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <<a href="mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM" class="">rbeauregardlacroix@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"/><div class="">
<div dir="ltr" class="">Hi Tomslin, <div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Thanks for jumping in! </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">If I understand you correctly, your point is that the risk evoked here is that of conflicting data protection rules? I agree that this is a risk somewhere out there, but I don't quite make the link between a hypothetical "hard" conflict of laws and the trust of the community in PTI; would you have some language to suggest, either to add or modify what is in the comment already? </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Have a nice day, </div></div><br class=""/><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 7:52 PM Tomslin Samme-Nlar <<a href="mailto:mesumbeslin@gmail.com" class="">mesumbeslin@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""/></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto" class=""><div class="">Thanks for the draft comment Raphael. Much appreciated!</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""/></div><div dir="auto" class="">In the comment regarding "evolving data privacy regulation landscape may have impacts on the level of transparency for the IANA registries, which may erode trust and accountability" being a risk to <i class="">Maintain stakeholders’ trust that IANA is the proper home for enabling global interoperability through unique identifier coordination,</i> </div><div dir="auto" class="">you wrote ".....to imply, for example, that data protection policies (including those seemingly developed by the community in the context of the Expedited Policy Development Process) may adversely affect “transparency,” “trust,” or “accountability,” represents a value judgement. This is problematic because PTI is not the final arbiter when it comes to the implementation of those values into the policies; the community is."</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""/>In my opinion, I think it is fair for PTI to put that as risk, understanding that risk is a function of probability and impact. What they are saying there in my view is the fact that there is potential for different jurisdictional regulations to affect their ability to maintain stakeholders' trust.</div><div dir="auto" class=""><br class=""/><div dir="auto" class="">Cheers,<br class=""/>Tomslin<br class=""/> </div><br class=""/><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon., 11 May 2020, 23:58 Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix, <<a href="mailto:rbeauregardlacroix@gmail.com" target="_blank" class="">rbeauregardlacroix@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""/></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi all<div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I have drafted a comment. Comments, suggestions, edits are welcome. The strategic plan itself is quite short so feel free to have a look too! </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Let's give it a week here so that the PC also have ample time for review. </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Have a nice day,</div><br class=""/><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Apr 20, 2020 at 7:34 PM Rafik Dammak <<a href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">rafik.dammak@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class=""/></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">Hi all,<br class=""/></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">PTI just published a public consultation on Draft PTI FY21-24 Strategic Plan and asking for input. We commented previously on PTI budget and operating plan and so it is important for us to review this strategic plan. You can find here all the details here : <a href="https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-fy21-24-strategic-plan-2020-04-20-en" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://www.icann.org/public-comments/draft-pti-fy21-24-strategic-plan-2020-04-20-en</a><br class=""/></div><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">I created this google doc to be used during the drafting and accessible to all in order to kick off the discussion and comments: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yjqC4fh-X9ISzJQWcxxwE75fHrNmnRuF93lCaweBjck/edit" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yjqC4fh-X9ISzJQWcxxwE75fHrNmnRuF93lCaweBjck/edit</a> </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Please let me offline if you want to <span class="">volunteer</span> to participate in drafting the NCSG comment, join the drafting team and collaborating with finance committee . </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">You can find previous public comments submitted by NCSG in this wiki page <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2020" style="background-color:rgb(184,234,184)" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" class="">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Public+Comments+-+2020</a> and listing those who drafted them or <span class="">volunteered</span>. </div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Best Regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">Rafik Dammak</div><div class=""><br class=""/></div><div class="">NCSG Policy Committee Chair </div></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br class=""/></div></body></html>