[NCSG-PC] ICANN UAM consultation

[Martin Pablo Silva Valent]

We should make a statement that whatever the Org puts out will just be temporally for a few months, and in any case Org should adopt a conservative approach and give as little access as possible, in the spirit of complying with GDPR and due to the already going EPDP. A hands off approach to the issue, since they are not the normal due process of ICANN.

Cheers,
Martín



> On 28 Jul 2018, at 04:50, Ayden Férdeline <ayden at ferdeline.com> wrote:
> 
> Yes, I agree that we should provide input. This parallel process isn’t going away, but it will go ahead without our feedback.
> 
> Best wishes, Ayden
> 
>> On 28 Jul 2018, at 01:12, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> We only discussed UAM in Panama as it was shared just prior to it, I think we got to pay more attention. Reading this blog post https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/data-protection-privacy-update-key-gdpr-whois-updates-and-next-steps>, ICANN org seems going ahead with the access model ignoring that the EPDP process was just initiated. I think it will be sensible to give input now. I expect there will be attempts to impose it at least as input for EPDP team.
>> any thoughts?
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Rafik
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180728/d3a46ded/attachment.htm>