Summary Notes on CEO - NCSG Leadership Meeting - 17 August 2018

[Stephanie Perrin]

I totally agree, Amr. I think he is not the only one who is prepared to 
accept any quicker, easier way of achieving "community consensus".  I 
draw your attention to the repeated description of the IPC/BC's access 
model as a "community" model.  It is not.  We are not participating, the 
Registrars are not participating, it is a proposal from one stakeholder 
group, supported by an AC (SSAC) who coincidentally have strong economic 
incentives to maintain access to personal data.

The way for this was paved in the summer of 2017 when ICANN decided to 
deal with the GDPR crisis by posting staff developed "cookbooks" and 
Goran's blogs, obviously with the impending legislation as the 
deadline/driver.  This is why I made a fuss about publicly quitting the 
Registration Data Service PDP when it became clear that senior staff/the 
Board/Legal services would be dealing directly with the contracted 
parties to relieve them of their obligations under their contracts, and 
coming up with the famous temp spec.

As you know, I am timed out of the GNSO Council next month, but we need 
to focus on fighting to keep the policy development process in the 
GNSO.  I think there are real dangers that ICANN.org is not as deeply 
committed to MS policy development as we in civil society are.

Stephanie Perrin

On 2018-09-03 15:23, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Thanks for this, Farzi,
>
> Under “Topic 1”, I find your notes on Goran’s remark troubling:
>
>> /“Goran: the Temporary Specification (Temp Spec) was a way for ICANN 
>> to fulfill our legal obligations, to align with what the Data 
>> Protection Authorities (DPAs) have indicated. ICANN organization has 
>> no view as to what should be the correct forum where the community 
>> works out the policy issues – this could be the EPDP or another 
>> agreed way.”/
>
> I believe that Goran should be protective of ICANN’s bottom-up 
> multistakeholder policy development. So far as gTLD policy is 
> concerned, this was frequently raised during the last GNSO Review, and 
> ICANN’s post-IANA transition accountability reforms (including on the 
> subsequent Bylaws Drafting Team). It does not bode well for him to be 
> unsure about whether there are alternatives to the GNSO’s remit in 
> developing gTLD policy. If there were, wouldn’t there be less 
> incentive to participate in difficult and time-consuming processes, 
> such as the EPDP?
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Amr
>
>> On Sep 3, 2018, at 9:07 PM, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM 
>> <mailto:farzaneh.badii at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
>>
>> Here is the summary of my discussion with the CEO.
>>
>> -- 
>> Farzaneh
>> <Summary Notes on CEO - NCSG Leadership Meeting  - 17 August 2018.docx>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180903/4de4ab21/attachment.htm>