[NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence

[Ayden Férdeline]

Also - I have now revised this letter again taking into account the helpful feedback that was received over the past 48 hours; moving forward, please feel free to edit the document directly if you have any changes you'd like to see made. Thanks!

Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 10 October 2017 7:44 PM
> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 18:44
> From: icann at ferdeline.com
> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thank you very much for your comments.
>
> It would be great if we could finalise this letter by Friday and perhaps even send it out that day. I very much welcome edits directly to the Google Doc; everyone on this list, please help write it and shape its contents!
>
> I would also like to propose that we write a monthly letter to ICANN on this topic until May 2018, when enforcement of the GDPR comes into effect. That way we can document for the data protection authorities that we have been informing ICANN in excess of six months of their need to comply with this regulation.
>
> The feedback from Nick Shorey on the PC call today - that we need to help engineer a conversation between the DPAs and their GAC representatives - is an interesting one, and one which seemed to have support in the chat. How would we go about this, however? Do we write to the GAC? Do we express this desire to them in Abu Dhabi during our face-to-face with them?
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Ayden
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>> Local Time: 10 October 2017 5:33 AM
>> UTC Time: 10 October 2017 04:33
>> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for the draft,
>> it is important we make a point to voice our concerns and influence the process. as we discussed before here and on the last call we got 2 problems 1- our representatives in taskforce not being informed 2- the last Data protection conference (that is already passed)
>>
>> for the current letter, indeed we should tweak the language there ;) while we keep the substance. reading IPC letter, it seems they reject the use case matrix and I understood from previous comments you think that doesn't include our perspective. I add few comments but I think we can add more, in particular, our concerns in general regarding the process and not just responding to BC and IPC requests.
>>
>> I ask other PC members to review the letter and share their thoughts. I put the GDPR as a discussion item for today call. We need a deadline to get this done and prior to Abud Dhabi meeting if we may want to continue the discussion there and depending on how things go with the cross-community session. I propose that we reach a new version by this Friday.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-08 23:07 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have drafted a letter to ICANN in response to the recent correspondence received from the BC and the IPC. [You can read/edit it here.](https://docs.google.com/document/d/13ujYOpJFL0eNvjQCiNmsduFFbiUPQC5Wmbe9wHC2K6Q/edit?usp=sharing) I know the language is provocative (intentionally so), but this is a first draft -- and if you disapprove please provide alternative language.
>>>
>>> Best, Ayden
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171010/772547eb/attachment.htm>