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

[farzaneh badii]

Just one thing m: Sorry I was not clear when shared. Staff actually took
these notes and sent me so they are very accurate. ( no biases on my behalf
:)

On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 3:45 PM Stephanie Perrin <
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> 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>
> wrote:
>
> Here is the summary of my discussion with the CEO.
>
>
>
>
> --
> Farzaneh
> <Summary Notes on CEO - NCSG Leadership Meeting  - 17 August 2018.docx>
>
>
> --
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20180903/7ab3e2ae/attachment.htm>