[CCWG-ACCT] WP2 Issues from last night's call

[Malcolm Hutty]

On 03/11/2015 16:54, Burr, Becky wrote:
> I understand the concern Malcolm, which is why I sent it out with both
> alternatives.  What if we had neither ³in service of its mission² or
> ³notwithstanding its mission²?

I think "in service of its Mission" is useful and important clarifying
language.

I suppose I could reluctantly accept its removal, in the interests of
consensus, if that enabled us to finally put this issue to bed and we
could finally freeze this text. But I feel that every time I make a
concession in this area, others come back with a yet more radical and
unacceptable additional demand. I'm not interested in being
salami-sliced any further by my own concessions.

It's time for the IPC to show that they are interested in reaching
agreement. If they are not, we should revert to the original language
that was overwhelmingly supported through the previous two public
comment periods, and the IPC can be invited to add a formal dissenting
comment.

Malcolm.

> 
> J. Beckwith Burr
> Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 11/3/15, 11:48 AM, "Malcolm Hutty" <malcolm at linx.net> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 03/11/2015 15:13, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>> I¹ve attached a revised deck trying to lay out our conclusions from last
>>> night.
>>
>> Becky,
>>
>> I regret I wasn't aware of a meeting last night. Moreover, this message
>> just arrived, and crossed with my reply to your message to Andrew
>> immediately previously.
>>
>> Regarding the chapeau, if your proposed resolution works for the IAB (as
>> I suspect it will), then I am content, and my previous message of a few
>> moments ago can be disregarded.
>>
>> Regarding the "contracting" issue, I can accept adding the preliminary
>> language "In service of its Mission". I cannot accept Greg's alternative
>> suggestion "Notwithstanding the foregoing"; that would mean that the
>> following statement completely supercedes and overrides the statement of
>> there being a limited Mission.
>>
>> If you need any further explanation of why the purple "notwithstanding
>> the foregoing" is a non-starter, I can provide voluminous references to
>> responses to public comment, and a comparison with the ISPCP statement
>> issued in Dublin. I hope this will not be necessary, and that we can all
>> agree on "In service of the Mission".
>>
>> Malcolm.
>> -- 
>>            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
>>   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
>> London Internet Exchange |
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__publicaffairs.linx.net
>> _&d=CwIF-g&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8W
>> DDkMr4k&m=JqsC5Zjvz5DIE0mKPzICaDfFgTw-Pj7kA_tmTjXLykk&s=F2P5dcS88CIyrgAF-9
>> N3nMq_NXhs_W3qUUCmMroUkuU&e=
>>
>>                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
>>       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ
>>
>>         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
>>       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
>>
>>
> 

-- 
            Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523
   Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog
 London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/

                 London Internet Exchange Ltd
       Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ

         Company Registered in England No. 3137929
       Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA