[NCSG-PC] Next NCSG Policy Calls

Tatiana Tropina tatiana.tropina at gmail.com
Thu Feb 14 08:18:24 EET 2019 

Hi,
Yes, that’s what I meant in my first email yesterday saying I can make it
“either tomorrow or on GNSO call”. Tomorrow is discussion, vote next week
on GNSo call — we have enough time to prepare and approve NCSG statement if
needed as we have two policy calls (unless you wanted to make it tomorrow
during the discussion. But I think best we do it before vote as with Red
Cross).
Cheers,
Tanya

On Thu 14. Feb 2019 at 04:18, farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20190214/8debbf99/attachment.htm>

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list