[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup

Mon Mar 4 19:03:51 EET 2019

I would like to read it. And I think it is generous of Alan to offer to fully embed your statement and not to label it as a minority statement.

Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Monday, March 4, 2019 5:52 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> FYI.  If anyone would care to comment on my statement, I will be writing it on the long plane ride I have tomorrow.
>
> cheers Steph
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject:	Re: [RDS-WHOIS2-RT] Late markup
> Date:	Mon, 4 Mar 2019 16:51:17 +0000
> From:	Stephanie Perrin [<stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca)
>
> To:	Alan Greenberg [<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>](mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca), RDS WHOIS2-RT List [<rds-whois2-rt at icann.org>](mailto:rds-whois2-rt at icann.org)
>
> Thanks a  lot Alan, that seems reasonable.  I will be happy to work with Jean Baptiste on this if he has questions.  Really, there are no surprises in there.  My statement is really going to be more about the framing of the review, about which we had little choice under the circumstances, and perhaps the tone which could be materially improved by a couple of additions.  The fact is, ICANN has not wanted to hear about data protection for 19 years and now we are racing to retrofit.
>
> cheers SP
>
> On 2019-03-04 10:42, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>
>> I am getting on a plane in 48 hours and my next two days were already pretty full! And I am unavailable for the two weeks following the ICANN meeting.
>>
>> I will integrate those parts of your comments that in my opinion (and those of Cathrin and Susan to the extent that I can dialogue with them) are not controversial. Those that would really need to have the review team re-convened to discuss will not be included. To do that would delay the issuance of the report well into April and I do not believe that we should do that.
>>
>> Changes to the actual recommendations (other than purely grammatical) are in a similar vein. Those have been out there for many weeks and to make changes to them will require going back to the entire review team.
>>
>> Once I finish the integration I will return the document to you with comments about what I did not integrate. I would appreciate knowing if that will remove your support for any recommendations and whether you will submit a statement very soon after that. Once I leave for Kobe, Jean-Baptiste will continue finalizing the report formatting and such and will integrate your statement is there is one. The intent is that swe ship this out before the end of the week.
>>
>> I appreciate your desire to not break consensus, but if my failure to integrate any specific comment on a Recommendation, I will understand that.  I strongly support your submitting a statement if you wish (labelled as a minority statement or simply as a statement from you without attempting to classifying it. It will go into an Addendum appended at the end of the report-proper (before the Appendices which may be packaged into a separate PDF to keep the document size reasonable. And I will insert a reference to it in both the Exec Summary and the body of the report.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> At 04/03/2019 12:52 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> RDS-WHOIS2-RT mailing list
>>> RDS-WHOIS2-RT at icann.org
>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rds-whois2-rt
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20190304/4b8ec2fb/attachment.htm>