[NCSG-PC] latest letter, the response to the March 8 GDPR compliance model

Renata Aquino Ribeiro raquino at gmail.com
Sun Mar 11 15:17:21 EET 2018


[observer here]

I agree w/ implying that governments can choose their experts
But in some governments, probably shouldn't as they not done wisely that before

On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 7:19 AM, farzaneh badii
<farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you look at the text in the document you see that I removed the words "we
> support the government..." and added "governments can". So that we dont just
> blatantly support them but acknowledge their ability.
>
> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 2:27 AM Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>
>> Strategically, suggesting that government can come up with the
>> accreditation of their own people is, in my view, important diplomatically.
>> We know that this will be achallenge for them, but who would you suggest to
>> replace the GAC in this regard?
>>
>> A five pager to respond to a 60 pager, in my view, is a minimal response,
>> I dont understand why you think it is indefensible. I can do a executive
>> summary if you like, with bullets. this already went out in the Art 29
>> letter.  I think it will add a page ultimately, but happy to do it, it is
>> not a problem.
>>
>> Stephanie Perrin
>>
>> On 2018-03-10 23:38, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>
>> I have made minor changes to this.
>>
>> We don't represent end users. so I corrected that.
>>
>> I don't think we support GAC to come up with the list of law enforcement
>> agencies who can have access to data. so I changed that to GAC can ....
>>
>> What we need to push for is really to say: tiered access can't happen now,
>> adopt model 3 move the tiered access after adoption if you can't then a
>> group of community members can work with GAC for coming up with layered
>> access.
>>
>> A five pager document submitted now would be read by no one, would be
>> difficult to advocate for. We have to highlight our points on the first
>> page, be short and sweet and provide our analysis on the rest of the pages
>> (maybe move the points you are making to the first and second page.
>>
>> This is advice only. Take it or leave it. I am not the subject matter
>> expert.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 3:45 AM, Ayden FĂ©rdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I support its submission.
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>> Sent from ProtonMail Mobile
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 23:43, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> please review the letter, as we discussed during the NCSG inreach session
>>> today and due to the urgency we have to send the letter within 24hours. so
>>> we have to get it done by tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Rafik
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2018-03-10 18:01 GMT-04:00 Stephanie Perrin
>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>>>
>>>> Ok folks, here is the letter as currently drafted.   COmments welcome.
>>>> Thanks to Ayden for many useful comments
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ______________________________ _________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>
> --
> Farzaneh
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list