Meeting with CEO

[Michael Karanicolas]

Would you care to elaborate on either point (or both...)?




On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 2:18 PM, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net>
wrote:

> I would disagree as would some case law.
> Having been the subject of near interrogation over the same topic I speak
> from experience.
>
>
> On 15 Aug 2018, at 19:10, Michael Karanicolas <mkaranicolas at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I agree. There is a strong public interest to tracking expenses of this
> type. I don't consider the fact that a person has requested/received an
> exemption to be particularly sensitive, given that there's no need to
> publish any details about the specifics underlying that exemption (the
> actual medical information).
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 11:56 AM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> This is a legitimate concern, but it something that can be managed. Other
>> organisations which publish similar data (government, grant issuing
>> agencies) have ways of managing this, which ICANN might be able to learn
>> from.
>>
>> Ayden
>>
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 16:41, James Gannon <james at cyberinvasion.net> wrote:
>>
>> The concern I know was raised previously is that it can be determined who
>> has asked and received a medical exemption from the travel and flight
>> policy hence may be considered for those people personal information.
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 16:19, Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Claire,
>>
>> Yes, it is a balancing act, but with the exception of names, the travel
>> report does not directly contain any personal information. It used to have
>> the cost of a flight, for instance - but never the city of departure or any
>> other identifying information. Much like we expect elected representatives
>> in government to disclose their expenses, I think it is reasonable for
>> those who are receiving financial support from ICANN to disclose the extent
>> of this relationship by way of documents like the travel report.
>>
>> Best wishes, Ayden
>>
>> On 15 Aug 2018, at 15:03, Claire Craig <claireccraig at GMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> Interesting Ayden. We really have to insist on balancing transparency and
>> privacy otherwise, before we know it everything could be justified and
>> private hence outside of the purview of the community.
>> CCC
>>
>> On Tue, 14 Aug 2018 at 17:55, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Farzi,
>>>
>>> While we would certainly like to see ICANN act in a more privacy-minded
>>> fashion, we would also like to see ICANN remain appropriately transparent
>>> and accountable.
>>>
>>> It might be worth asking to see the Privacy Impact Assessment (if any)
>>> that ICANN org conducted prior to redacting the travel reports of all
>>> meaningful data. They are now useless, as the financial information has
>>> been redacted, with ICANN org attributing this change to “privacy laws.”
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>
>>> On 14 Aug 2018, at 23:49, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear members
>>>
>>> I will have a meeting with the CEO on Friday the 17th. The issues that I
>>> have in mind to discuss with him are:
>>>
>>> Unified  Access Model and NCSG perspective. (we had some preliminary
>>> discussions on the list about it, hopefully, we will have some common
>>> positions which I can relay on Friday.)
>>>
>>> Cross Community Sessions and dominance of the organizer
>>>
>>> The need to have a more privacy-minded ICANN org and community
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is quite a full agenda and he would want to also talk about issues.
>>>
>>> Please comment on the current issues by tomorrow and let me know if you
>>> have any other topic you would like to be discussed.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180815/238a78fb/attachment.htm>