NCSG - GAC Meeting

[Kathy Kleiman]

Looks good to me!  Perhaps for the next step we could add timing -- so 
that we know the minutes for each section in our limited time period?

Best, Kathy


On 2/19/2018 4:17 PM, farzaneh badii wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <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 Mon, Feb 12, 2018 at 5:26 PM, Ayden Férdeline
>     <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto: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/icann60abudhabi2017/e3/I60AUH_Mon30Oct2017-GAC%20meeting%20with%20the%20NCUC-en.pdf
>         <https://schd.ws/hosted_files/icann60abudhabi2017/e3/I60AUH_Mon30Oct2017-GAC%20meeting%20with%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
>         <mailto: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/20180219/9f5dc9b5/attachment.htm>