[CORRESPONDENCE] ICANN Response to NCSG Letter about Domain Name Registrants Data Protection

Sun Oct 21 09:22:01 EEST 2018

While I agree completely that it is important to respond with a detailed and comprehensive demonstration that our position is factual (for the public record), I respectfully suggest that such a response is only the first step.  I am not sure how to elevate this within the ICANN community, but this sort of dismissive counter-factual response from the Board should be of concern to everyone and it should be brought to public attention in a forceful manner.  In other words, we don’t want to just “set the record straight” – we should want to “make the public point that the Board acted wrongly, and that it should not do so again.”  I don’t really know how to achieve that … but our goal has to be broader public persuasion

P

Paul Rosenzweig

 <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com

O: +1 (202) 547-0660

M: +1 (202) 329-9650

VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739

 <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/> www.redbranchconsulting.com

My PGP Key:  <https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684> https://keys.mailvelope.com/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x9A830097CA066684

From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 4:52 AM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: Re: [CORRESPONDENCE] ICANN Response to NCSG Letter about Domain Name Registrants Data Protection

I think it is important that we respond in a comprehensive and deliberate manner so the public record is clear and our reputation in the community remains in good standing. It is outrageous that ICANN would insinuate our letter was not factual: I believe it was, and once this week’s meeting ends, we will have the capacity to work on a rebuttal, including full footnotes and links to relevant transcripts. (Stephanie Perrin’s dissertation has a number of annexes that document ICANN’s hostility towards Data Protection Authorities over the years, including their letters to ICANN that have gone unanswered. It might be worthwhile introducing some of these tables, with Stephanie’s permission, into our response too.)

And note all that of our three questions/requests, ICANN only addressed two, so we need to remind them of the third one...

Best wishes, Ayden

On 20 Oct 2018, at 23:31, Raphaël Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at GMAIL.COM <mailto:rbeauregardlacroix at GMAIL.COM> > wrote:

Hi all,

I suppose this is as expected.

One of the problem we face (and the Board faces, too, ultimately) is that of substantiating certain claims; this effectively requires poring through email list archives, comments (and even recordings of calls and chat logs!) 

But since we are making claims here, legal tradition would dictate that we have to substantiate them... which is a daunting task, to say the least. 

That being said, after a cursory review of our letter and the response, I do agree that there seems to be a certain amount of question dodging by the Board and that this can be addressed without having to engage in a long and tedious fact-finding process.

And of course this is not to say that I don't believe what our letter stated :) I trust that many of our members who have been active for years have seen things unfold. But keeping track and records is difficult, and the Board will always be able to raise that card against us, unfortunately.

I'll be happy to join in drafting an answer.

Nice weekend to all,

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 11:48 AM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com <mailto:farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> > wrote:

Stephanie

They did not specify quote us and then say we didn't provide evidence. They misquoted us and misstated what we said and said we did not provide evidence. Otherwise we did provide evidence based on which we formulated our opinion. 

On Sat, Oct 20, 2018 at 5:45 PM Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> > wrote:

And that may be the record for the fastest response to a letter from NCSG that we have ever received.  We will of course have to respond, but I recommend we take our time and deal with each point they raise carefully and with citations, since we have been told that letter is based on opinion not fact.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-10-20 17:33, farzaneh badii wrote:

Please find attached the Board response to our letter regarding domain name registrants data protection. 

: Cherine Chalaby; Correspondence; Board Ops Team; Secretary

Subject: [CORRESPONDENCE] ICANN Response to NCSG Letter about Domain Name Registrants Data Protection 

Dear Dr. Badiei and Dr. Perrin,

Please find the attached letter from Cherine Chalaby in response to your October 17 letter to the ICANN Board about Domain Name Registrants Data Protection.

You may expect the letter to be posted to the ICANN Correspondence page shortly: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/correspondence.

Thank you,

Begin forwarded message:

Subject: [Board-Ops-Team] NCSG Letter to ICANN Board about Domain Name Registrants Data Protection

Dear ICANN Board,

Please find attached the  NCSG letter regarding ICANN org’s willingness to violate data protection laws and principles to advance the interest of certain parts of the community.

Please kindly publish this letter on Board correspondence page. 

We look forward to your response. 

Best regards,

Dr.Farzaneh Badiei

Dr. Stephanie Perrin

-- 

Farzaneh 

-- 

Farzaneh 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20181021/eccee35f/attachment.htm>