[NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls

Wed Feb 13 10:11:50 EET 2019

Yes I will send my thoughts but it is not a n NCSG   consensus position. so
just take them as a personal opinion for now

It seems like the motion is to approve the whole report and then move
forward. So the easiest and most logical is to vote for the approval of the
report. I am not well versed in GNSO operating procedures, so I don't
really know if this is feasible but I would like to know if one of our
council members as well as saying yes to the approval could make some of
the following points:

1. The EPDP despite an unrealistic timeline achieved its goal and delivered
the final report(of phase 1). We are pleased with the outcome of the group
and our councilors have voted yes to the approval of this report, but we
would like to record our concerns with some aspects of the report.
Grateful, nice multistakeholder participation, thanks you,you are all
heros.

2. The registrants data elements that are a part of the data elements
matrix have expanded and include  "Additional data elements as identified
by Registry Operator in its registration policy ".Which can be sensitive,
personal information of domain name registrants. We have raised this
concern and emphasized that there is no reason to add or even mention the
additional data elements to the data matrix and no need to base some of the
purposes (such as purpose 7) based on this data. The response that we
received was that this provision and the related purposes will not lead to
the expansion of registration data elements. This is not a satisfactory
response.  we would like to register our concern and warn the ICANN
community and domain name registrants that registration data elements might
be expanded and include even more sensitive data, due to this addition,
that can be disclosed to third parties.

3.  Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants
globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain
name registrants globally is not justified, especially as we are moving
towards disclosing domain name registrants data to third parties "globally".

---

This is for now. I will send some more thoughts later.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 5:19 PM Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com> wrote:

> I know that everyone in the team is extremely swamped, but for the sake of
> best representation, would the NCSG EPDP team perhaps be able to send us
> their thoughts prior to the Thursday meeting?
>
> I’ve personally been following the mailing list and developments, however,
> my position should also take into account the thoughts of the EPDP team
> members IMHO.
>
> Thanks again Rafik,
>
> Elsa
> —
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 4:08 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Yes there is council meeting in 14th Feb but the vote will be in meeting
>> of 21st Feb which is more important. Scheduling the NCSG call was a timing
>> issue and Friday is least worse option.
>>
>> I think the agendas of the 2 council meetings indicates the topics and
>> material. For EPDP, it is the final report. For IGO-INGO, the material are
>> the same like for the previous calls.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019, 06:01 Elsa S <elsa.saade at gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Rafik,
>>>
>>> Thanks for organizing this! I look forward to the calls. Just a question
>>> though, isn’t the placeholder council EPDP meeting this Thursday 14th?
>>>
>>> And if there’s certain material that we need to keep an eye out for more
>>> than others, it would be great to highlight them so that our conversation
>>> would be more constructive and efficient.
>>>
>>> E.
>>> —
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 9:13 PM Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> with regard to calls, I suggest:
>>>> 1- A call on Friday this week as update on EPDP and getting sense of
>>>> NCSG positions on the recommendations (we might need to vote recommendation
>>>> by recommendation based on level of consensus )
>>>> 2- A call next week Monday for NCSG Policy call as usual. The council
>>>> agenda for next week call is mainly about EPDP
>>>> so I expect we will cover mainly EPDP during the 2 calls.
>>>>
>>>> the 2 calls will be 90min each to no put more burden.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> Le jeu. 7 févr. 2019 à 23:49, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> a
>>>> écrit :
>>>>
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> as we are having 2 GNSO Council meetings and the delivery of final
>>>>> report for EPDP to decide on, I would like to propose:
>>>>>
>>>>>    - 1 call for EPDP update only next week, not necessarily before
>>>>>    the extraordinary meeting (we are not voting there ). that will helps us
>>>>>    for any position on consensus designation, voting at council level and
>>>>>    giving any relevant update.
>>>>>    - 1 call for the usual NCSG Policy call. I will suggest some
>>>>>    dates/times as I will be traveling in the week of 18th Feb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another approach is just to have 1 call instead, maybe longer (2h30
>>>>> with allocating more time for EPDP update e.g.60 or 90min) next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> Elsa Saade
>>> Consultant
>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>>>
>> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190213/62b6895f/attachment.htm>