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

Sat Oct 14 23:13:44 EEST 2017

Hi Rafik,

I have no objection to the current text as its stance.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 14 October 2017 at 18:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent <
mpsilvavalent at gmail.com> wrote:

> I won’t mess the document, so I put it here: I basically took out two
> phrases: the one were it says we would apply to DP authorities, and the
> ending were it says we would go to court.
>
> This is strong and vague enough for us to do whatever we feel necessary
> and we outline the hard-risk real risk of ignoring GDPR (a subtle hint if
> you may).
>
> "As active stakeholders in the ICANN multistakeholder community, we want
> to participate in the policy changes which will see ICANN come into
> compliance with data protection law after a 19-year record of sweeping it
> under the rug. However, if we are excluded from the process, and feel that
> once again certain stakeholders with everything to gain and nothing to lose
> from the collection of end-user data are getting the ear of senior
> management, whilst we get the cold shoulder, we are afraid that we will
> have to take all actions at our disposal regarding ICANN’s continued,
> 19-year streak of non-compliance with data protection law. As we are sure
> you are aware, the new GDPR gives individuals the right to sue the Data
> Protection Authorities for failure to protect end-user rights, which ultimately
> will impact in the DNS use and ICANN itself."
>
> Cheers,
> Martín
>
> On Oct 14, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:
>
> 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>
> <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 listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://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
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>

-- 
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd

*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171014/6b80c9f3/attachment.htm>