[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

Fri Sep 22 16:19:47 UTC 2017

Hi Fab,

Thanks for your insights into this.  You raise a really interesting and important point.  I tend to agree with you that the lack of community engagement in the GDPR-preparedness discussions is very very disturbing.  I’m not sure I agree that it should be conflated with the RDS PDP.  I see the GDPR discussions as related to Whois “as is” if you will.  I see the RDS group as dealing with the future of Whois, that is creating an “ideal” (or as ideal as possible considering we govern  by committee) system.   If anything, I think RDS should suspend its work until we understand more fully the implications of the GDPR on Whois…. but I don’t think the RDS discussions have a place in the GDPR discussions.

That said, I do think we have a ton of experts in this group, and we should probably all be participating in whatever capacity we can in both discussions.

I hope that makes sense and that I’m appropriately understanding what your concerns are.

Best,

Kiran

Kiran Malancharuvil
Policy
MarkMonitor
415.222.8318 (t)
415.419.9138 (m)
www.markmonitor.com<http://www.markmonitor.com/>

From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie)
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 8:16 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan <ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>; gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

Appreciate this feedback, Andrew.  Simply put, my concern is that these independent and misinformed conversations will result in bad decision making that will run counter to our efforts here in this duly-constituted PDP WG that is following the standard ICANN processes for developing policy -- if not render them useless altogether.  Which in turn highlights my earlier comment that this side-show effort from ICANN runs counter to the bottom up / standard ICANN processes for developing policy.

Maybe it's just me making a mountain out of a molehill, but Stephanie echoing these concerns on the last call encouraged me to reach out to my fellow WG members to see if others share the concern and wanted to act on it.

Others?

-----Original Message-----
From: gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:09 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] ICANN Meetings/Conversations with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners

Hi,

On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 02:51:44PM +0000, Vayra, Fabricio (Perkins Coie) wrote:

>

> I couldn’t agree more with Stephanie and find it incredible that ICANN, despite our ongoing efforts and the plethora of published community concerns, are continuing with the approach of rushing to discussions with Data Protection and Privacy Commissioners “half-cocked.”  Putting aside the apparent widely shared view that this approach is misinformed and dangerous, it’s simply redundant of and does not take advantage of our work within this PDP process  -- one could even say that it runs counter to the bottom up and community led initiative on RDS/WHOIS.

>

I don't understand what the problem is supposed to be.  We are a

duly-constituted PDP WG that is following the standard ICANN processes

for developing policy.  If other parts of ICANN want to talk to data

protection and privacy commissioners, or activists in favour of

publishing all personal data available in the universe, or privacy

activists who think the DNS should be closed in favour of onion

routing, or the committee of the Present King of France and the Easter

Bunny, why should we care?  In the event (for which I have diminshing

hope) that we publish a report that is actionable by the GNSO, the

ordinary ICANN policy mechanisms will grind forward no matter what

meetings people have had.

We can best contribute to that end, in my opinion, by focussing on

getting done the work that we are supposed to be doing, rather than

worrying about all the other things other people might be doing.  By

concentrating on this and making some progress, we might even reduce

the temptation of others to second guess this process.  At the rate we

are currently moving, we appear to be destined to deliver something

right after heat death of the universe, and I suggest that that pace

is partly because there is no issue on which people are willing to

focus, come to a clear conclusion, and then let that conclusion stand.

I therefore urge that we focus on our task and not make our job harder

than it already is by attending to outside distractions.

Best regards,

A

--

Andrew Sullivan

ajs at anvilwalrusden.com<mailto:ajs at anvilwalrusden.com>

_______________________________________________

gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list

gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org<mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_gnso-2Drds-2Dpdp-2Dwg&d=DwIGaQ&c=XRWvQHnpdBDRh-yzrHjqLpXuHNC_9nanQc6pPG_SpT0&r=6lUxzkhJPN5qts-Nve5TYqxoGjP81z1kCvXgsmw-MiQ&m=9eU57wIVscyGuvbIbm2BAi8LELlVrSQBl5k9N2YJxfQ&s=EWf3FrLMoZXzDzHkrW30uyrwfH-GkQk1TGt5Jc2ndKs&e=

________________________________

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you have received it in error, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170922/52f5ef3b/attachment-0001.html>