NCSG: Summary notes from call with Goran Marby Jan31

[Amr Elsadr ProtonMail]

Thank you very much for this, Stephanie. I found it to be very helpful, in terms of context.

Thanks again.

Amr

> On Feb 22, 2019, at 7:41 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
>
> Sure Amr.  I was indicating my general disgruntlement on the EPDP process, and Goran said (roughly speaking, I did not write detailed transcripts) you know I pushed to have this a multi-stakeholder process, the contracted parties were not interested in having you (and others) involved.  We did know this, as early as the summer after Copenhagen.  We were still fiddling away while Rome burned, in terms of GDPR compliance, and the registrars and registries had a fairly intense meeting with ICANN org at that meeting and I believe at GDD meetings around that time, to say (again, roughly speaking, I cannot quote them since I was not there) we are complying with GDPR, WHOIS is going dark and you need to change our contracts.  There was a last minute meeting, which we attended with four reps (me, Wendy Selzer, Ayden Ferdeline, and I am sorry I am forgetting the fourth person).  They then did an inventory of "use cases" for WHOIS data, which of course took up a couple of months.  Meanwhile the RDS PDP chugged on.  By the next meeting in Abu Dhabi in the fall of 2017, it was clear that there were negotiations going on between ICANN org and the contracted parties.
>
> I do not regard this as illogical, nor really a violation of the MS principle.  Most of the 2013 RAA WHOIS specs were in my view in violation of the GDPR (let alone its precursor the 95/46 Directive on Data Protection) so the contracted parties needed to get something happening immediately. An MS process would not have produced a result at that late date, we were swimming through molasses on the RDS pdp on every meeting, as I am sure you remember. You may recall I resigned from the RDS pdp at the time...that was over the lack of transparency.  WE were wasting gobs of time on a process that would soon be superseded by the temp spec, I felt they should have done the honourable thing and told us what was up.  For folks like me, this is all volunteer time, taken away from our normal lives.
>
> When the matter came up at GNSO Council to strike the EPDP, I volunteered for the small group that was drafting the Charter, to ensure that we got fair representation that matched our GNSO Council seats.  Sure enough, there was an attempt to limit our numbers.  We are all indebted to Milton for responding to my cries for reinforcement, to help fight for our 6 seats.  As we can see from the past 7 months of the EPDP, we needed every one of those reps.
>
> I think Goran was simply stating his support for us (and the other non-contracted parties) and the MS process.
>
> cheers Stephanie
>
> On 2019-02-22 06:05, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>
>> Thanks for this. One of the bullet points under topic 2 (Multi-Stakeholder Model) stood out to me:
>>
>> “The Contracted Parties did not necessarily support having NCSG (or other non-contracted parties) participate on an equal basis in the EPDP.”
>>
>> Would you mind elaborating on this? Who said this, and is there any background to it that we should be aware of?
>>
>> Thanks again.
>>
>> Amr
>>
>> Sent from Mobile
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 9:53 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:
>>
>>> As discussed at the policy meeting in january, the call between the CEO and the NCSG Chair took place on January 31, and the summary notes are attached.  These were provided by ICANN staff, and are very high level.  Feedback on what should be discussed in the next call, which will take place sometime between ICANN 64 and ICANN 65, would be appreciated.  I would draw to your attention:
>>>
>>> - impending budget reallocations are likely to impact us, we need a strategy
>>> - I intend to follow up in Kobe in discussions with CEO and the Board what "simplifying" the MS process means
>>> - we need to exercise fiscal prudence and develop metrics for success.
>>> - we have been talking about volunteer burnout for years now at ICANN (actually we ignored the problem during the IANA transition, because we knew everyone would be working insane hours).  It is time for us to come up with some of our own solutions, I doubt anyone is going to do it for us
>>> - there was a lot of focus in our discussion on EPDP, because we were down to the final days on that massive exercise, with many serious issues not fully addressed.  We need to discuss a few of the other ongoing policy developments, we need a break....
>>>
>>> I am happy to try to answer your questions, if I can.  This was in my view not a particularly informative call on either side, I will prepare my own briefing note to send ahead with a discussion of our key concerns the next time; it is not a particularly relaxed conversation so more formal preparation is clearly needed on my part.
>>>
>>> In the meantime, don't forget to suggest topic for discussion with the Board in Kobe....last call!
>>>
>>> Kind regards
>>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>
>>> NCSG Chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20190225/efbac53c/attachment.htm>