Antw: [NCSG-Discuss] Draft response to the March model for compliance to the GDPR

[Stephanie Perrin]

Thanks very much for the very thoughtful comments Wolfgang.  I will pull 
the backward looking remarks and put a positive spin (just let me leave 
one we told you so in there :-))

It may be worth including, along with the HR impact assessment, a 
comment that this model ought also to have been subjected to a Privacy 
Impact Assessment, (with the appropriate recital from the Regulation).

Thanks again for the fast response!

Stephanie

On 2018-03-11 07:08, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter wrote:
> Hi Stepahnie & Farzi,
>
> thanks for the great work in such a short time. I support your approach.
>
> I do have only small comments.
>
> My key issue is looking forward, that means to make sure that the next
> steps (tiered&layered system) are in full compliance with the new ICANN
> bylaws and its human rights based commitments.
>
> The issue, that "full transparency" means "full participation in PDP",
> is such a key issue and should get first prirotiy. A strong argument
> (since years) is that the GAC sofar has overreprsented LEAs and
> underrepresented DPAs. Even the EU was silent when 5 years ago Suzanne
> pushed for LEA Rec.11 in the GAC and she got it without any objection
> from the EU for the RAAs. Article 29 WG was watered down and nobody
> objected in the GAC. If the Board gets GAC Consensus advice (as it was
> with the LEA Recs./RAA) it is difficult to change it. Fadi (and many
> board members) did not like it. But to get the RAA done was an important
> step towards the IANA transition. Now we have a different time, althoug
> under the new bylaws it is now even more complicated for the board to
> reject GAC Consensus advice.
>
> So you have to work with the EU GAC rep to make sure, that the EU itself
> fights for its philosophy and legislation within the GAC. Transparency
> within the GAC would be a step forward. Building NCUC partnership with
> like minded GAC members is an important element. Bottom up
> multistakeholder PDP includes state/non-state actors collaboration from
> the very first moment. This is BTW "pure enhanced cooperation" under
> para. 69 - 71 of the Tunis Agenda. Just do it!!!
>
> The Board plays certainly a central role, but in this case the board is
> also sandwiched between the GAC and and a splintered community. To
> attack the board (from a NCUC perspective) could have an unintended
> sideeffect to weaken the board in its battle with "radical GAC members"
> to go forward towards "balanced" solutions. To have a strong GDRP
> Rainbow coalition with like minded GOVs and like minded non-state
> stakeholderrs (what about IETF?) is key (ignore or reject Tony Rutkowski
> who delievers dangerous poison).
>
> Small steps are not bad. It doesn´t help too much to repeat too often
> that we have said this since 20 years. Yes, it is correct. In remember
> Santiago de Chile in September 1999. Since that: "The same procedure
> like every year.:-)))"
>
> But everybody knows this. The battle is here, now and in the years
> ahaed. To work with Catanacci is also a good option. And what about LEAs
> in China and Russia?
>
> Best wishes and hope to see you in Panama.
>     
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> 10.03.18 23.20
> Uhr >>>
>       As many will know,           ICANN released a lengthy report on its
> proposed model for           compliance with the GDPR on March 8.
>           
>      
> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/data-protection-announcements-2017-12-08-en
>             
>           
>       Because of the urgency           of ongoing discussions at the
> ICANN 61 meeting in San Juan, we           have responded with our
> preliminary comments.  Attached is a           draft letter, your
> feedback is most welcome, but we need to           get the letter out in
> 24 hours as the meeting starts Monday           with a GDPR cross
> community session at 10 am.
>           
>       Thanks very much.
>       Stephanie Perrin
>           
>       
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180311/e2440738/attachment.htm>