Letter from NCSG PC to Swinehart, Atallah, Marby, and Crocker re: GDPR
Sam Lanfranco
lanfran at YORKU.CA
Thu Oct 26 13:55:39 EEST 2017
I would like to politely suggest that the "lesson learned" here is that
all such communications should first pass by the general membership
before being sent. While I feel that this is a minor transgression/error
I urge caution, even when -as in this case- an official letter is simply
a restatement, or rehash, of earlier communications. Such letters get
part of their meaning from content and part from context. With the
passage of time the context may shift and the same content as sent
earlier can have a very different meaning.
I thank the Policy Committee for their hard work. But as a precaution, I
suggest it always pass proposed text before the membership, both for
comment and for approval, before being sent..
Sam Lanfranco
On 10/26/2017 1:11 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> Hi Nick,
>
> I think it is best for the Policy Committee Chair to respond to your
> question, but I will jump in quickly because he is flying to Abu Dhabi
> as we speak.
>
> The letter which the Policy Committee sent was not "substantive" in
> nature; it was a simple restatement of the positions which the NCSG
> has previously developed in consultation with our membership, and
> adopted previously by way of public comments. It was a rehash; and not
> a departure from our past positions.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: Letter from NCSG PC to Swinehart, Atallah, Marby, and
>> Crocker re: GDPR
>> Local Time: 24 October 2017 2:56 PM
>> UTC Time: 24 October 2017 13:56
>> From: lists at NICKSHOREY.COM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>
>> Hi Rafik,
>>
>> Thanks for the clarification. It is therefore my observation is that
>> the process in this instance was actually inconsistent with the
>> charter, namely:
>>
>> /"*2.7.7 Participation Rights*/
>> / The NCSG Membership shall have the following participation rights
>> in regard to the administration and policy development processes of
>> the Stakeholder Group"/
>>
>> /4. Be given timely notice of all position papers developed by the
>> NCSG on the public NCSG email list and afforded an opportunity to
>> comment on them;"/
>>
>> and:
>>
>> /"*2.5 The Policy Committee*/
>> /The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:/
>>
>> /- Discussion and development of substantive policies issued in the
>> name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination with the
>> membership and constituencies;"/
>>
>>
>> I also recall expressing my concern to the sending of a letter during
>> the call on 10th October, so would have welcomed the opportunity to
>> review any draft letter and support, abstain or formalise my
>> objections for it was sent.
>>
>> I therefore welcome the ideas expressed in Rafik's email of 8 August
>> for the development of detailed operating procedures setting out
>> the working processes for the Policy Committee, and agree with Milton
>> that as part of these should be the requirement that all statements
>> from the PC should be run through the main list beforehand.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>> Nick
>>
>> *Nick Shorey*
>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988
>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
>> Skype: nick.shorey
>> Twitter: @nickshorey
>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin>
>> Web: www.nickshorey.com <http://www.nickshorey.com>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 1:49 PM, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu
>> <mailto:milton at gatech.edu>> wrote:
>>
>> Statements from the PC should always be run through the main list.
>>
>>
>> Milton L Mueller
>> Professor, School of Public Policy
>> Georgia Institute of Technology
>>
>> On Oct 21, 2017, at 21:12, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM
>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Nick,
>>>
>>> yes, it is the current NCSG charter.
>>> we don't have operating procedures yet on that matter. We
>>> started working on those procedures a few months ago with a
>>> small drafting team in order to get clear processes
>>> (https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-August/000796.html
>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2017-August/000796.html>)
>>> and avoid ad-hoc approach.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>> 2017-10-22 8:12 GMT+09:00 Nick Shorey Lists
>>> <lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>>:
>>>
>>> Hi Arsène,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the clarification.
>>>
>>> Can you (or anyone else) confirm whether V5 (May 2011) is
>>> the current NSCG Charter?
>>> Link:
>>> https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38046240&exitMobile=true
>>> <https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=38046240&exitMobile=true>
>>>
>>> In addition to the NCSG charter, are there any other
>>> documents / operating procedures that further detail how the
>>> Policy Committee operates?
>>>
>>> Kind regards,
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On 21 Oct 2017, at 18:39, Arsène Tungali
>>> <arsenebaguma at gmail.com <mailto:arsenebaguma at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Nick,
>>>
>>> As said by Ayden, the letter was drafter, discussed and
>>> agreed upon by our Policy Committee. It was not shared to
>>> the NCSG list.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Arsene
>>>
>>>
>>> -----------------
>>> Arsène Tungali,
>>> about.me/ArseneTungali <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>
>>> +243 993810967 <tel:+243%20993%20810%20967>
>>> GPG: 523644A0
>>> Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
>>>
>>> On Oct 21, 2017, at 5:44 PM, Nick Shorey
>>> <lists at NICKSHOREY.COM <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>
>>>> My question was whether the draft document was circulated
>>>> to the NCSG list for comment prior to finalisation.
>>>> Can you confirm if this was the case?
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>>>
>>>> *Nick Shorey*
>>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 <tel:+44%207552%20455988>
>>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
>>>> Skype: nick.shorey
>>>> Twitter: @nickshorey
>>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin>
>>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com <http://www.nickshorey.com>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Ayden Férdeline
>>>> <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Nick,
>>>>
>>>> As stated, the letter was prepared by the Policy
>>>> Committee in accordance with our charter.
>>>>
>>>> Regards, Ayden
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: Letter from NCSG PC to Swinehart,
>>>>> Atallah, Marby, and Crocker re: GDPR
>>>>> Local Time: 21 October 2017 4:24 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 21 October 2017 15:24
>>>>> From: lists at NICKSHOREY.COM <mailto:lists at NICKSHOREY.COM>
>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Ayden,
>>>>>
>>>>> Was a draft of this document circulated to the list
>>>>> for comment prior to finalisation and issuing to ICANN?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> *Nick Shorey*
>>>>> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 <tel:+44%207552%20455988>
>>>>> Email: lists at nickshorey.com <mailto:lists at nickshorey.com>
>>>>> Skype: nick.shorey
>>>>> Twitter: @nickshorey
>>>>> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin>
>>>>> Web: www.nickshorey.com <http://www.nickshorey.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 21, 2017 at 3:27 AM, Michael Karanicolas
>>>>> <mkaranicolas at gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:mkaranicolas at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Very well written letter, on a topic of
>>>>> importance. Thanks very much for sharing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Ayden Férdeline
>>>>> <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> The Policy Committee circulated a letter
>>>>> yesterday to senior ICANN management and to
>>>>> the Chair of the Board outlining our
>>>>> disappointment in how we are being
>>>>> marginalised in conversations surrounding
>>>>> ICANN's compliance (or lack thereof) with
>>>>> European data protection law.
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist of our comment was that as active
>>>>> participants in the ICANN multistakeholder
>>>>> community, we want to participate in the
>>>>> policymaking process, and we would like both
>>>>> to see and to help ICANN come into compliance
>>>>> with data protection law.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have attached a copy of the letter
>>>>> <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/dammak-to-swinehart-atallah-19oct17-en.pdf>
>>>>> that the Chair of the Policy Committee sent.
>>>>> This letter was a collaborative effort
>>>>> generated in accordance with our charter, and
>>>>> followed conversations on our Policy Calls
>>>>> where we discussed sending official
>>>>> correspondence to ICANN leadership on this
>>>>> matter. You will be kept updated if a response
>>>>> is received.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline
>>>>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20171026/fdacd8b4/attachment.htm>
More information about the Ncsg-discuss
mailing list