[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Late markup

[Stephanie Perrin]

Thanks Wendy, great to hear from you!  Feel like joining a few pdps?  heh heh :-D

cheers Steph

On 2019-03-04 10:31, Wendy Seltzer wrote:



On March 4, 2019 9:29:36 AM EST, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:


I think it is likely they will accept none of my comments....too late.
But I will hold my ground.



Thanks Stephanie!

--Wendy




Thanks for reading it.  Obviously my principal objection is that it was
framed entirely the wrong way in the first place.  Plus an unnecessary
review at this time.  But that ship sailed during the first meeting in
Brussels, which I attended remotely (never a good option when you are
the minority) because I had to go to the DPAs meeting around the same
time to finish the ICANN report.

Too much work, too few hands on deck.  However, the good news is we now
have 9 members who are intimately familiar with the WHOIS fight, fresh


>from the EPDP, so we have more folks who can hit the many pdps that


will have to resolve some of the issues mentioned under Anything
New.....

Cheers Stephanie

On 2019-03-04 02:32, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
Thanks for this Stephanie, I have just reviewed your annotated version
of the report and your analysis is excellent. You are more diplomatic
than I would have been though! Please do stand your ground; I hope they
do not just publish the final report ignoring your comments and instead
seek to address them... but is there any possibility that they will do
that?

Ayden


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, March 4, 2019 7:00 AM, Stephanie Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
wrote:


I sent the attached markup of the final RDS REview II to the review
team.  I do not like the tone of the report, nor do I really support
many of the recommendations, particularly the sections on Law
Enforcement and accuracy.  One could tear apart the way the survey was
done, the bias against privacy, etc.  I was alone on these issues, with
occasional support from Volker.  I think he just gave up as this being
shortly to be proven irrelevant.

Anyway, here it is, for those with boring plane rides where they want
to fall asleep.  I did not verify the correct transpostion of the
appendices, nor the definitions.

Cheers Steph


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:
       Late markup

Date:
       Mon, 4 Mar 2019 00:51:46 -0500

From:
Stephanie Perrin
<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca><mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>

To:
RDS WHOIS2-RT List
<rds-whois2-rt at icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org><mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org>




Attached is my markup of the document.  Overall, this document is
impressive in its scope and research.  Basically, I think many of our
recommendations are sensible.  However, the bias towards disclosure of
information, the negative attitude towards the GDPR (which my SG
applauds as exemplary effort to protect privacy and human rights), and
the absence of any explicit recognition of the fact that our WHOIS
practices already violated data protection law during the time of the
past review are discouraging.  Not to mention the fact that the birth
of ICANN coincided with the coming into force of the EU directive, and
we have had plenty of advice from the DPAs over the past 19 years
telling us how to fix it.   The push to continue doing what we have
done since ICANN was born, regardless of changing risks, improvements
in data protection, and the existence of many other ways to achieve the
security and stability of the Internet, is discouraging.  I realize we
had to review the recommendations of the previous Review team.  We live
in different times, however, and the evidence of that impacting our
review is not there.

Given how many issues I have reservations about, I would like to make a
statement, but I am not quite sure where it belongs.  I do not want to
resist consensus, but I do want to register some frustration with this
process and final result.  I do appreciate that I am a minority view
and that you have tolerated my raising my comments and objections
throughout the process.

Stephanie Perrin

Chair, NCSG




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190304/9a3dc764/attachment.htm>