[NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 05:18:15 EET 2019 

I was wrong and there is not vote scheduled for tomorrow. If things go well
at EPDP and we don't see much changes to the report then this report is
acceptable and the statement stands.

But I wanted to know if you could ask for more details about the informal
IRT process. I don't know if you have been briefed or not but it is good to
make sure that by informal IRT they don't mean just CPs and ICANN org. So
if someone has clarified this before would be grateful to get some
clarification. Otherwise, things are looking good please at least have a
cursory review of the report yourself but we will, of course, be discussing
the report on Friday. We can work on the statement now that we have more
time.


Best


Farzaneh


On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 8:18 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thanks all
>
> We are not really saying anything new (we said similar things in our
> public comments). Anyhow, I read the report again today, and re-did the
> statement  sent it to NCSG mailing list and Tanya said will kindly read it
> during the meeting.
>
> I leave it to the policy committee to decide on reading the statement or
> the best course of action. the link to Google doc at the bottom of this
> email.
>
> @@@@
>
> NCSG statement/ For GNSO Council Meeting, 14 February
>
> Despite an unrealistic timeline, EPDP achieved its goal and delivered the
> final report. We are positive about the final report and our councilors
> have voted for its approval. But we are concerned with some aspects of the
> report and would like to record our concerns.
>
>
>    -
>
>    The report has included additional potentially  personal and sensitive
>    data elements that are “identified by Registry Operator in its registration
>    policy."  There was no justifiable reason to include these additional data
>    elements in the report, nor was it justifiable to formulate purposes that
>    could relate to processing these additional elements.  These additional
>    data elements were not included in Temp Spec either. We are concerned about
>    subjecting these additional data elements to this policy and warn the ICANN
>    community and domain name registrants that due to this addition even more
>    sensitive and personal data might be disclosed to third parties on a global
>    scale.
>
>
>
>    -
>
>    Data protection should be provided for all domain name registrants
>    globally regardless of their location. Discriminatory treatment of domain
>    name registrants and providing some with less data protection is not
>    justified, especially as we are moving towards disclosing domain name
>    registrants data to third parties "globally".
>
>
> -  We believe "disclosure" of data to third parties is not an ICANN
> purpose for processing the data.
>
> We thank the EPDP, its leadership and ICANN staff for achieving this
> milestone. We hope that with this policy  by cultivating a
> privacy-respecting culture at ICANN, protecting the personal data of domain
> name registrants becomes a norm, and not remain an exception.
>
> Feel free too correct mistakes, change the tone remove unnessecary rant
> etc.
>
> https://docs.google
> .com/document/d/1M8M0kaQSdQD3CC1HmpSTwMIKcufCT0ekVu7yHgx_f5w/edit?usp=sharing
>
> Farzaneh
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:32 PM Arsène Tungali <arsenebaguma at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I will not be able to attend Friday’s call as i will be traveling, wanted
>> to have my apologies noted. I will try to not miss Monday’s call instead.
>>
>> I also do think that we should not delay the approval of the final report
>> by voting no but expressing our reservations is the best approach and there
>> will always be time for this statement to be registered after the vote.
>>
>> I hope our EPDP members will be able to help come up with a consensus
>> statement and have Tatiana read it on our behalf.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Arsene
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2019, at 20:01, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you Tatiana. I will send more soon.
>>
>> Farzaneh
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:19 AM Tatiana Tropina <
>> tatiana.tropina at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>> As those points align with my position, I can certainly make them before
>>> voting yes — either tomorrow or on the GNSO call. I guess there will be
>>> time for expressing opinions. If this would be a consensus position of the
>>> NCSG, one of us can make a statement, as we did with Red Cross. I guess we
>>> have enough time to prepare a consensus statement before the GNSO vote, if
>>> necessary.
>>> Cheers
>>> Tanya
>>>
>>> On Wed 13. Feb 2019 at 09:12, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190213/0180947f/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list