[NCSG-PC] [Draft] Letter to ICANN re: BC and IPC correspondence
Dr. Tatiana Tropina
t.tropina at mpicc.de
Mon Oct 16 17:54:38 EEST 2017
All,
Sorry for weighing in later -- first family holidays this year and then
last minute travels. This letter required more attention than I had due
to my limited bandwidth.
I agree with those suggesting removing the last para. I am not even
talking about how we would look with the threat of enforcement or
whether it is politically right.
What I can say here as a lawyer, that unless we are 100% sure when and
how we procedural are going to enforce this threat *and* unless we are
100% sure that we are going to do this -- it shouldn't be there.
I am not even sure how procedurally this issue can be addressed by us in
the EU courts (DPAs - yes).
Waving the legal threats should be possible only if we are going to do
this immediately after getting a negative answer. Taking into account
the GDPR implementation timeline, we can easily be ignored by ICANN
legal. Furthermore, the threats could water down our main messages.
We can continue the discussion about legal tools to pursue our position
though. But for now the letter is great without the last para. Ayden,
thank you so much for your impressive work on drafting it.
Cheers,
Tanya
On 16/10/17 08:50, Matthew Shears wrote:
>
> Hi all
>
> I would like to suggest that the letter minus the last para be
> submitted (I am proposing one or two other edits in the text). There
> are many important points in the remaining text that make it a
> valuable contribution (thank you Ayden and others for the drafting) -
> particularly reinforcing the importance of outside counsel's input.
> The possibility of a campaign, as well as how we build a solutions
> oriented approach to GDPR as noted below by Rafik, should be discussed
> face to face in Abu Dhabi - these are very important issues, and
> should be given appropriate time and space to address in person rather
> than over e-mail.
>
> Matthew
>
>
> On 16/10/2017 00:42, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>> Hi Ayden,
>>
>> Thanks for your response and points taken.
>> as I suggested we should go gradually into escalation and leave space
>> for ICANN and staff to respond to our requests. We are enough
>> assertive at this stage and we can be more later on. it also gives us
>> more time to think about our strategy and get a plan (implementation)
>> for the campaign and the resources needed for that. it is not empty
>> words and we shouldn't put a threat what we don't have as a group a
>> clear idea and support how we will do so.
>>
>> I am really looking for discussion(s) in Abu Dhabi and we should
>> organize several meetings for that to get an action plan and clear
>> idea what we will do and how. if people are ok with this, we can
>> organize informal breakfast meetings to work on that (unfortunately
>> it is too late to book room).
>>
>> From other discussions in RDS skype channel, I understand there is a
>> question on what we can propose solutions, way to go forward and
>> sharing our positions, and Stephanie volunteered to draft that. I
>> proposed that we discuss GDPR at meeting with Board but that didn't
>> get enough attraction.
>>
>> we should finalize the letter by tomorrow. and I really ask the rest
>> of Policy Committee members to respond and comment. it is an
>> improtant topic for us as group.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>> 2017-10-16 0:33 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
>> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>>
>> 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 <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> To: Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>
>>> Martin Pablo Silva Valent <mpsilvavalent at gmail.com
>>> <mailto:mpsilvavalent at gmail.com>>, 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>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>> <mailto: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 <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 <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto: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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <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
>>>>>>>>> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
> --
>
>
> Matthew Shears
> matthew at intpolicy.com
> +447712472987
> Skype:mshears
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20171016/f366afd2/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list