Curative rights GAC-IGO

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k at GMAIL.COM
Mon Mar 1 13:43:33 EET 2021 

Dear Tomslin, friends and colleagues

We curative rights for GAC-IGO had its second meeting today, am not sure where my two other NPOC REPS are but two meetings has already passed by and I will not enumerate nor wish to explain again to them the involvement and what’s at stake here.

What many of you do not réalisé is that like it or not NPO/NGO ETC ., are and should be concerned by the process going on, since the challenges are ahead also puts us in same position, whilst finding a workable workaround is being debated it concerns us as well. The discussions are on the sites as I sent. But prominently WIPO and others have also asked that a discussion withe GNSO To see if there might be a little way to tweak the 4 initial recommendations accepted and put forward by the GNSO. 

My position remains the same as before is to let the ICANN process proceed without changes but I also as many beg to differ to use the 6ers list as a base since govt always come up with new projects as well as UN itself. Taking my own experience with The Hague I again stated that even if it for Igo the way forward could help NPO out, although this is purely GAC related but the acceptance of à courber downturn could help us as well. 

But again I told them I was skeptical about GNSO wanting to change anything but am not for mediation because it could be too biased I prefer a court ruling where 6ers is not the list ICANN uses to define what can or cannot allocate under the rules set out.

This will be my update. 

Have a good day, afternoon or evening,

Kris

> On 1 Mar 2021, at 07:00, Tomslin Samme-Nlar <mesumbeslin at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Awesome! Thank you Stephanie and Farell for volunteering for this one.
> 
> Tomslin
> 
> 
> 
>> On Mon, 1 Mar 2021 at 06:27, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>> Thanks Farrell, that is great!!
>> Stephanie
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>>> On Feb 28, 2021, at 14:00, Farell FOLLY <farell at benin2point0.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> EXTERNAL EMAIL:
>>> Hello all,
>>> 
>>> I would like to join Stephanie on this, to provide assistance or any useful help.
>>> 
>>> @__f_f__
>>> 
>>> Best regards
>>> ____________________________________
>>> 
>>> Lt-Colonel Farell FOLLY, Ir
>>> GNSO Councillor
>>> linkedin.com/in/farellf 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 28 Feb 2021, at 17:49, Stephanie E Perrin <stephanie at digitaldiscretion.ca> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I will volunteer to draft this thing.  Fair warning though, I think we have to comment on the fact that every time we make a concession on something and compromise, at the next stage of the game, the other side re-litigates old issues.  There are also a  number of hardy perennials in the EPDP combat zone that just keep coming back despite the agreed policy.....such as the fact that we are aiming for a harmonized policy, not just compliance with GDPR in regions where it's application is incontestable.  A question of bargaining in good faith, one might say, continues to haunt this work.
>>>> 
>>>> All help gratefully received.
>>>> 
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2021-02-28 3:45 a.m., Tomslin Samme-Nlar wrote:
>>>>> Thank you Bruna. Nice work!
>>>>> 
>>>>> In a similar vein and more on SSAD, I would like to remind members that there is an open Public Comment proceeding seeking input on the final recommendations that relate to SSAD which closes in 30 days. We still do not have any volunteers to draft the comment.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The announcement is here >> https://www.icann.org/public-comments/epdp-2-policy-recs-board-2021-02-08-en
>>>>> And the draft comment is here >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QAUa2nT2a9YGGhK0r603EJCXfa58elXd9kPh3DH0DrU/edit?usp=sharing
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Tomslin
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Feb 2021 at 07:28, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear all, 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hope this email finds you all well and safe! 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I'm writing to let you know that I have just received a response from the ICANN CEO to our communication re. SSAD. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Best regards, 
>>>>>> Bruna 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 11:02 PM Kristi Hoffmaster <kristi.hoffmaster at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Thank you! 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Please include this - crucial:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1. Could you please clarify in what ways the SSAD could be instrumental for stopping
>>>>>>>  and preventing the dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related societal harms ?
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 12, 2021 at 6:11 PM Poncelet Jokkolabs Banjul <pileleji at jokkolabs.co> wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hello all, 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> First of all, thank you very much for the comments on this thread. As suggested, I took the liberty of taking Sam's comments and shaping into a letter to the ICANN Board and CEO on this topic. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> The darft can be found here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Mmax62EkxSRgr8AMi8jqnNXlP36cjRdfqFy6gYrmnPY/edit - and I would like to invite you all to add your comments and suggestions to it. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Considering this letter is about a communication issued by ICANN Org to the EPDB in December, I would say it's good for us to send it maybe next week. But, as usual, I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter as well. 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>>> Bruna 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Jan 8, 2021 at 7:56 PM Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Milton, the comments are in the public domain and the NCSG is free to use them as they see fit. Thanks for the support.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> From: Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 3:51 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: Sam Lanfranco <lanfran at yorku.ca>; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> This is a great comment, Sam, why don’t NCSG officers just copy and paste them into an emailed letter to the CEO and Board?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Sam Lanfranco
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 2:22 PM
>>>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> As I understand the “ICANN org Comments on the Recommendations 01/2020 on Measures That Supplement Transfer Tools  to Ensure Compliance With  the  EU Level  of Protection of Personal Data”, they deal primarily with the transfer of data between regulatory jurisdictions and the processes necessary to meet a strict interpretation of the GDPR’s international data transfer requirements.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> This has absolutely nothing to do with “…stopping and preventing the dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related societal harms.” (Comments: p. 2) except in so far as legitimate requests by legal authorities may be related to investigations around such matters. Given that such matters reside outside ICANN’s remit, ICANN org should be asked to expunge the phrase from its position on transfer tool compliance with the EU’s personal data protections.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Secondly, I have a couple of questions in areas that are not clear to me. The Comments say that the proposed SSAD model would introduce “…a centralized process for managing access requests and placing ICANN org in the middle of this process.” They go on to say “ICANN org or its designee(s) would manage a system for the intake of requests for data and would route these requests to the registrar or registry operator for a response.”
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear if, in one way or another, ICANN would be the central clearing house for dealing with such requests, and it is not clear to whom “designee(s)” refers to.  My question is whether an ICANN-centric clearing house is the proper solution here, or whether a less centralized multilateral agreed upon set of principles (and processes) would better serve the intended objectives? Also, any transfer involves at least two national jurisdictions, so a rogue recipient state’s behavior could be blocked by a sending state in compliance with agreed principles and processes.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Lastly, is there an issue of who decides whether an inter-state request is legitimate?
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Sam Lanfranco
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> From: NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> On Behalf Of Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, January 8, 2021 10:33 AM
>>>>>>>>>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: ICANN Comments to EDPB and content regulation
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for raising this Farzi, i will confess that i was goofing off at Christmas and totally missed this letter.  I will raise it at the next EPDP meeting, and I think this ought to be raised at Council as well.  I should have raised it at the meeting yesterday of the small team looking at the other SSAD response (letter from the Board) even if it is a mite off topic there....this is a real  howler.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> On Jan 7, 2021, at 21:03, Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix <rbeauregardlacroix at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you Farzaneh and Bruna. Could easily have flown under the radar and forgotten after Christmas. This is certainly an important matter. Looks typical in its language: putting various kinds of processing as matters of "necessity" without looking into purpose and context of such processing. ICANN is no "surveillance capitalist," but precisely if it sticks to its narrow mandate and to appropriately, narrowly designed processing, it will also steer clear of any form of trouble with (most) DPAs and their related statutes. Now, if it starts giving in to pressures by certain interests to stop the "social harm" of fake gucci bags (hmm...), well, we get that kind of letter, I suppose.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> I'd be happy to help on the matter.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Have a nice day!
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 10:27 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Thank you so much for raising this here Farz.  I will definitely mention this topic when I have my next interaction with Goran. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> About the Content Moderation part, I agree with you that this topic might be absolutely out of the scope of the SSAD and ICANN as well. And this has been a point this community has raised before - more than just once and about Whois and CoMo. I also happen to agree that the definitions of Illegal content and content related to societal harm are rather open and problematic for the SSAD - or for many other discussions as well. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Should we work on a letter - to the Board, the EPDB or both - reviving our arguments about Whois and Content moderation and send it once again ? Are there any volunteers who would like help me with this ? 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Best, 
>>>>>>>>>> Bruna 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 12:00 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> In my spare time, I got to read ICANN's letter dated 21 December 2020 to EDPB about compliance with GDPR. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/icann-org-comments-edpb-recs-21dec20-en.pdf
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> There was one alarming issue raised in this letter, and since the Internet community has been mentioned, I think we should at least ask Bruna to raise it with the CEO next time she talks to him. I know we haven't drafted other  important comments but I haven't followed EPDP so will leave that to the members.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> P.2: "The SSAD is therefore instrumental for stopping and preventing the
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> dissemination of illegal content and in order to avoid related societal harms". This is alarming because the SSAD is serving ICANN's mission which has nothing to do with the regulation of illegal content and that is outside of its mission. I don't know what they mean by societal harm. We have many times told ICANN not to be careless when it comes to the limited function of WHOIS and relate it to content regulation. They said they wouldn't. But here they are definitely going into those territories. 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> There are other matters in the letter as well but I haven't had the time to read closely, for example they are talking about "thick WHOIS" not happening because of the strict international transfer. I am not sure where epdp is at with discussing thick whois. Can we even have it in place? 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Bruna Martins dos Santos 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> @boomartins
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>>> Bruna Martins dos Santos 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>>>>> @boomartins
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>>> Poncelet O. Ileleji
>>>>>>>> Jokkolabs Banjul -  Lead
>>>>>>>> Sait Matty Road, Bakau, Adjacent to Swedish Consulate
>>>>>>>> KMC, The Gambia
>>>>>>>> P O Box 4496 Bakau,KMC, The Gambia
>>>>>>>> Skype: pons_utd
>>>>>>>> Tel Direct Office: +220 4495115
>>>>>>>> Tel Mobile/Whatsapp: +220 9912508
>>>>>>>> www.jokkolabs.net
>>>>>>>> LinkedIn: Jokkolabs Banjul
>>>>>>>> Facebook: Jokkolabs Banjul
>>>>>>>> Twitter: @jklBanjul
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Kristi Hoffmaster
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Webmaster - SPX Corporation
>>>>>>> Owner - Shop Hoffmaster
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Day mobile (980) 215-3296
>>>>>>> Mobile (864) 237-1766
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Bruna Martins dos Santos 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
>>>>>> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede 
>>>>>> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
>>>>>> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Twitter: @boomartins // Skype: bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210301/fee6b75c/attachment.htm>

More information about the Ncsg-discuss mailing list