NCSG - GAC Meeting

[farzaneh badii]

Thanks a lot everyone with the very good suggestions:

We can go with

Agenda of NCSG meeting with GAC:

- Background on NCSG, our values and convergence of our values with GAC

- Rights Protection Mechanisms: Our NCSG view

- Privacy

- Wrap up

I will submit this to NCSG PC.

Best

Farzaneh


Farzaneh

On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 1:20 PM, Nick Shorey <lists at nickshorey.com> wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> GDPR and privacy are definitely the priority issues within ICANN's remit,
> and as we only have 30mins we should probably keep it quite focused.
>
> Next step is to think about what we want out of the meeting? Do we want
> the GAC to take an action? Do we want their agreement on a policy position?
> Do we want them to commit to entering a dialogue?
>
> In regards to GDPR, in my view I think we want the GAC to at the very
> least review the position they've taken on WHOIS.
>
> The recent GAC documents on this (Abu Dhabi communique, compliance model
> proposal) contain some very worrying statements, which I can't help
> thinking have been endorsed and submitted with very little scrutiny,
> consultation or debate.
>
>
> I think we need to broaden the GAC's source material on GDPR, and politely
> challenge some of their assumptions, by making several points:
>
>
> - GDPR is THE most pressing issue for the ICANN community since the IANA
> transition, and we need the full engagement of the GAC (not simply
> delegating to PSWG) in ensuring WHOIS policies adhere to the principles of
> International law and Human Rights.
>
> - WHOIS personal data is not a reliable / best practice intelligence
> source (as stated by PSWG) / professionals use other sources as indicators
> of abuse;
>
> - Governments aalready have court orders, which are a much more effective
> and legally enforceable mechanism, including for intellectual property (UK
> has LEA for this);
>
> - Consumer protection is not a justified reason for overriding privacy.
> End users don't reference WHOIS (CCT study) and as an example, public WHOIS
> data is not even referenced as a requirement under the UK Companies Act
> (companies have to provide registration details on websites, but no mention
> of WHOIS);
>
> - The requirement for publicly visible email addresses will facilitate
> crime;
>
> - Retaining data for 60 days beyond expiry is not proportionate: a common
> example cited by PSWG is DGA domains, where the domain will be used for
> abuse within days of being registered. Thus if the domain was registered
> for 1 year, the investigating agency will have almost a whole year to make
> the request;
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Nick
>
> *Nick Shorey*
> Phone: +44 (0) 7552 455 988 <+44%207552%20455988>
> Email: lists at nickshorey.com
> Skype: nick.shorey
> Twitter: @nickshorey
> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin
> Web: www.nickshorey.com
>
> On Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think this question is somewhat similar to what I asked the GAC during
>> our Abu Dhabi bilateral, when I said "we’re unsure as to how GAC members
>> consult with their justice departments in order to find the right balance
>> between maintaining public safety while
>> respecting fundamental rights such as the right to privacy which can be
>> found in the constitutions of over 100 countries." See page 18 onwards of
>> the transcript: https://schd.ws/hosted_files/i
>> cann60abudhabi2017/e3/I60AUH_Mon30Oct2017-GAC%20meeting%20wi
>> th%20the%20NCUC-en.pdf
>>
>> I think we need to be very delicate with questions to do with what
>> process the GAC follows. I'm certainly curious as to how they form their
>> opinions, and work internally, but I don't know if it appropriate for us to
>> flat out say or even insinuate that they are only consulting with their
>> trade representatives. And I do think that is the insinuation some are
>> making. Real or perceived, right or wrong, we can't make it (in my opinion).
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> ​Ayden
>>
>> ​
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>>  On 12 February 2018 2:41 PM, Johan Helsingius <julf at JULF.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >I really like Michael's suggestion:
>> >
>> >>Could we ask the representatives more generally about how they develop
>> >> their policy positions, and whether and how they consult with human
>> >> rights/privacy/data protection voices in government, or with domestic
>> >> NGOs or civil society voices, in formulating the policy positions that
>> >> they bring to ICANN - maybe phrasing the question a bit more broadly
>> >> than just asking directly about the RPMs. I feel like this might need
>> >> to be approached delicately, but it may be a good question to get the
>> >> GAC delegates themselves to reconsider...
>> >>
>> > W§e have to remember that a lot of GAC members are fairly junior,
>> > pretty new to ICANN, and not always very well briefed. They also
>> > often biased to see GNSO as "A club of domain industry lobbyists with
>> > a small group of free speech academics". I think it would be good to
>> > point out that we speak on behalf of civil society in their countries
>> > too, and encourage the GAC members, as representatives of their
>> > governments, to extend the sphere of people they talk to and seek
>> > advice from.
>> >
>> > Julf
>> >
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180219/4ed61896/attachment.htm>