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

Sun Oct 15 19:12:21 EEST 2017

Dear Ayden,

I share your concerns the important to me is we having a road map moving on
from this letter, at least that will show a commitment on our side that we
really serious about it.

So my strong  emphasis is  on us getting a road map as soon as possible
working with our allies.

Kind Regards

Poncelet

On 15 October 2017 at 16:33, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com> wrote:

> Hi Rafik,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> I think we need to be explicit with what we are asking, clear that our
> words are not an empty threat, and definitive that consequences will follow
> if ICANN does not meet its obligations under the GDPR.
>
> I am happy for us to send the attached letter with Martin's revisions,
> though I think it does now sound like an empty threat. The ambiguity sounds
> to me like we do not know what our course of action will be, when that is
> incorrect. In the previous draft we were very clear: if ICANN does not
> comply with European data protection law, we will evail ourselves next May
> of the Data Protection Commissioners and if necessary, see you in Court.
> But we have spent a week trying to get comments on this letter and speaking
> only for myself, my motivation is now fading. We have other comments to
> write; so if there is consensus on this letter as attached, we might as
> well send it. If we do not, let's not.
>
> I have tried multiple times over the past two weeks to have a conversation
> around next steps. I have tried on the policy call, on this list, on Skype
> channels to talk campaigns. We all have our own interests at ICANN and
> follow different topics; I get that. This is something I am following so I
> have more time for it. And it is for that reason that I say, we are not
> going to get allies like AccessNow or EDRi if we ourselves cannot take the
> time to discuss a path forward. And I feel very strongly that if we reach
> out to others, we should not be asking for much more than a signature on a
> letter. It needs to be a part of a campaign that we are leading. We cannot
> expect them to take the lead here. We are in the ICANN working groups,
> being ignored and observing ICANN's non-compliance, and our civil society
> members have their own priorities which I am sure they have already
> budgeted for for FY18. So this is on us. I think a face-to-face meeting in
> Abu Dhabi - separate from our policy committee meeting if possible - is
> essential if we decide to take this campaign forward, and I think we should.
>
> But we might decide that we will not launch a campaign next year, because
> we are not committed to this issue. I kind of get that feeling.
>
> Ayden
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC
> correspondence
> Local Time: 15 October 2017 3:11 AM
> UTC Time: 15 October 2017 02:11
> From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com
> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>, Ayden Férdeline <
> icann at ferdeline.com>, ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks for those participating in the editing.
> I understand the concerns about using a threat language. I am wondering
> how much we should be strategical here.  We should escalate gradually (and
> assertively) depending on the situation, but putting nuclear option, in the
> beginning, may not work. There is a sense of emergency here and we have to
> act quickly.
>
> I believe we should have a discussion about the strategy we should follow
> and if we want to go into the campaign path, getting media attention and so
> we would need to have a clear plan, get allies and experienced folks to
> support us.  As I shared in RDS channel, there was some effort during
> Privacy/Proxy service public comments and we can learn from that.  I
> brought that experience because it let many outsiders be aware of the
> situation and send their comments. I understand that is a different context
> but we can start by leveraging our membership: EDRi,  EFF, Accessnow and
> many others, I volunteer with others to reach them.
>
> I think we can shape a letter expressing strongly our concerns and so we
> must continue the discussion in Abud Dhabi for next steps ( we will need to
> allocate time for that on formal and informal meetings) to outline a plan
> to follow.
>
> let's finalize this letter, it is timing will be just 2 weeks prior to Abu
> Dhabi meeting.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-10-15 5:21 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.
> utoronto.ca>:
>
>> 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> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171015/d5c358f5/attachment.htm>