[NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Oct 14 23:21:37 EEST 2017
Very nice edit.
Stephanie.
On 2017-10-14 13:39, Martin Pablo Silva Valent 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
>> <mailto: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 <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>
>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is> <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>> ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is><ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>> <mailto: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>,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
>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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 <mailto: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/c92e242d/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list