Statement: EPDP recommendations/WHOIS privacy

[farzaneh badii]

Hi all,

I am wrong on a couple of things:

1. Vote is not tomorrow they will discuss the motion. So statement is not
for tomorrow

2. We could also vote on individual recs but it is preferable to vote on
package.

We shal continue the discussion anyway before voting happens.

On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:13 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear All,
>
> The Council is going to vote on the motion to approve the recommendations
> of EPDP tomorrow (Thursday). We are at the final stages of our
> deliberations at EPDP and it is almost done.
>
> The council has to vote on this report (attached) as a whole and cannot
> vote on recommendations separately. This makes our work a bit difficult
> because we do not agree with all the recommendations. One approach would be
> for NCSG councilors to approve the report but make a short statement for
> our own record.
>
> I have been discussing the concerns for a couple of weeks on this list so
> there is nothing new and I hope that we can direct our councilors tomorrow
> to make this statement if they can:
>
>
> NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February
>
> Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the
> final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors
> have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the
> report and would like to record our concerns.
>
>
>    -
>
>    The report has included additional potentially  personal and sensitive
>    data elements that are “identified by Registry Operator in its registration
>    policy."  There was no justifiable reason to include these additional data
>    elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate purposes that
>    could relate to processing these additional elements.  These additional
>    data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are concerned about
>    subjecting these additional data elements to this policy and warn the ICANN
>    community and domain name registrants that due to this addition even more
>    sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third parties on a global
>    scale.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants
>    globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain
>    name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not
>    justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name
>    registrants data to third parties "globally".
>    -
>
>    We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN
>    purpose for processing the data.
>
>
> We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this
> milestone. We hope that with this policy by cultivating a
> privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain
> name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception.
>
>
> Link to the statement:
>
>
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Comments are welcome (I think we have some hours)  but since
> Councilors are going to read this statement out I give them the liberty of
> changing the tone or re-doing the statement.
>
> Best
>
>
>
>
>
> Farzaneh
>
-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190213/1d843ac6/attachment.htm>