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

Sat Oct 14 19:20:56 EEST 2017

Hi Martin,

Thank you very much for reviewing the draft letter. I appreciate you taking the time. Could I please ask that you edit the Google Doc directly and massage the final paragraph, so that you are happy with it? I think we do need to be forceful and punch back. I disagree that we should only go through the GAC or follow GNSO processes to be heard. We are, by design, being excluded from the conversation on this issue, and a flaw in the multistakeholder model has become apparent (at least to me). I think we should avail ourselves of all legal avenues through which we can seek a resolution to gTLD policies so to protect fundamental rights, such as the right to privacy. To box ourselves in and to forever subject ourselves only to a process flawed by design would, I think, be a mistake. Thanks again.

Best wishes, Ayden

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
> Local Time: 14 October 2017 4:38 PM
> UTC Time: 14 October 2017 15:38
> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> To help this letter hit the spot, is already perfect, but for the last paragraph:
>
> 1) Threatening to go with a public official NCSG campaign with State agencies of Europe to hit ICANN, to force the MS model, is a very bad idea. As NCSG, we should only go to governments through the GAC and keep using our GNSO procedures to complain if we are being left out. Going berserk on ICANN with borrowed state power breaks the whole model, something that is way beyond what we need to do in this case. It’s a dangerous precedent. Why Europe? What about other jurisdictions? other states? We can still coordinate with the GAC, and as non-commercial activists we can do public campaigns and state claims in defense of our rights, but it should not be an NCSG action. We have procedures to escalate the problem inside the model, let’s use them fearless. Let’s call the ombudsman, keep writing to the board, fill the open mic, massively go into working group coordinating our members, etc (we have councilors!). Asking data protection agencies to put pressure for us, in NCSG name, outside the process we set for ourselves is not ok, is a pandora box of precedent.
>
> 2) Even if we all agree that NCSG should ask a governmental agency to put it’s nose in the GNSO process, which I am NOT saying we do, the paragraph hits a big brick wall of rhetoric problems. If you read the letter, the letter is perfect, is reasonable, is harsh, it makes you blush to think the issue is at such a poor situation. Is backed by other stakeholder, opposite to you. Once you read the threat you loose all the communication bridges you build before in the letter. Anyone with some knowledge of the GNSO will stop thinking on the ICANN problem of addressing GDPR, they will read that NCSG is threatening, to go to EU to force ICANN, and the multistakeholder model.
>
> 3) The letter is perfect, we do need a punch in the last paragraph that states both our level of concern, alert and the demand to be heard. But we should threaten to use either specific tools of the ICANN Process, or a vague thing that allows us to afterward choose the best tool.
>
> Cheers,
> Martín
>
>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:55 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Martin, thank you very much for this feedback. I take it on board and hear what you are saying. However, I am afraid that I do disagree. I think we need to be forceful. From what I understand we have been ignored and sidelined for 19 years. I think it is important we punch back and let ICANN know that we are serious about being able to input into this conversation, or we will avail ourselves of alternative mechanisms. To that end, we will need to start thinking about campaign tactics too -- that is something I have been thinking about for next year; what are the next steps, when do we launch, and what do we need? I think the time for diplomacy was a year ago (or longer), and now is the time for action.
>>
>> Warm wishes, Ayden
>>
>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:49 PM
>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:49
>>> From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>
>>> I’ve been following the doc, it looks great. I would be much more mellow and diplomatic in the las paragraph, not threaten things, like going public with a campaign with data protection agencies. I think we shouldn’t promote agencies as policeman of ICANN, I understand we are waiving that in the event the multi-stakeholder model fails to include as as stakeholder, yet, I wouldn’t set that as precedent and I do not recommend to make it before the actual exclusion of the process happen, much less by  by written official letter.
>>>
>>> I do believe that we have to talk about alternative strategies, but not in a letter like this, is a very big threat with deep implication, I wouldn’t recommend to go with that nor sign it as official NCSG position. Reminder: ONLY ABOUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH, the rest looks amazing and I still think we should make clear the point we must be taken in account. Just take away the threat.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Martín
>>>
>>>> On Oct 13, 2017, at 6:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Stephanie, I tend to agree. I have attached a copy of the letter which includes the Chair's name.
>>>>
>>>> Ayden
>>>>
>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 10:33 PM
>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 21:33
>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be signed by the Chair on behalf of, in my view.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers Steph
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2017-10-13 17:27, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have done some final polishing to the letter, and have attached a proposed final draft. I hope we may be able to reach agreement soon on sending this letter. Also - I was wondering, should it carry a name, perhaps of the Chair, or is it okay to be signed 'NCSG'?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Many thanks, Ayden
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
>>>>>>> Local Time: 13 October 2017 7:59 PM
>>>>>>> UTC Time: 13 October 2017 18:59
>>>>>>> From: icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>> To: Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is the perfect tone for this letter. As we saw in Hong Kong this month, our public silence is being manipulated and used to make the false claim that we are being consulted with and are an integral part of ICANN's efforts to comply with the GDPR, when we are not. Thanks for these edits Stephanie. We need to reshape the narrative and get it all documented.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ayden Férdeline
>>>>>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 7:14 pm, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I jumped in today (apologies for being anonymous, always forget my google password) and made quite a few changes.  I like the idea, but I think we should be a bit more specific.  In terms of informing the DPAs....Swineheart is trying to get people to the IWGDPT meeting in Paris, I think everyone has been briefed at the data commissioners meeting in Hong kong (remember a whole crew from ICANN went) that there is a draft statement coming. So they know we have been briefing them for two years, we need to sharpen that a bit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let me know if you think it was a bit too strong.  I will confess, I am losing my patience with this lot.  They spend gobs of money gadding around trying to nullify end user rights.  Totally ignore us.  Ought to be ashamed of themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017-10-13 07:05, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> reminder for everyone to review the letter and share comments.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2017-10-11 4:28 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>>> <Proposed Letter - Chair Name.pdf>_______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20171014/70fac9a8/attachment.htm>