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

[Sam Lanfranco]

I am pretty much aligned with Kris’ position here, treating the GDPR as 
a sort-of baseline as this Working Group does its work. I would like to 
step back a bit and put this emerging RDS/GDPR policy intersection into 
a wider context.

ICANN’s policies and practices for security and stability of the 
Internet, its operational relations with its contracted parties, and its 
multistakeholder policy making process will have to come to terms with 
the fact that much of the new policy affecting the Internet will come 
from the individual and multilateral expression of national interests 
and national concerns outside ICANN’s remit.

The old worry that the ITU, the UN, or some other multilateral 
organization, might “take over” the management and policy development 
for the security and stability of the Internet has to be replaced by an 
understanding that the Internet ‘rights” policy agenda have gone well 
beyond a focus on the issues that fall within ICANN’s remit.  As policy 
issues such as GDPR mature, ICANN’s policy remit will represent a 
smaller part of the global Internet policy agenda, and it scope for 
policy will be affected.

This does not mean that ICANN should expand its policy remit. It does 
mean that ICANN’s policy process and operational relations, especially 
with contracted parties, will have to factor in what is happening in 
other national and multilateral policy arenas. It may also mean that 
ICANN as a whole may want to participate in some fashion, as a 
stakeholder in its own right, in the non-ICANN part of the global 
Internet policy agenda. Its various constituencies are, of course, 
already involved.

The current RDS/GDPR policy intersection, and this episode around ICANN 
Board conversations with the data privacy people, */suggest that ICANN, 
and its constituencies should open up an internal dialogue/* around how 
ICANN can, should, or should not, handle engagement with policy issues 
outside ICANN’s remit, especially when those policies will have impacts 
on the context in which ICANN fashions policy within its own remit.

Sam L


On 9/23/2017 8:10 AM, Kris Seeburn wrote:
> Yes Ayden that’s my view as well and many will folllow GDPR as 
> baseline. Most of the new privacy acts or bills or updated acts are 
> laying down the same kind of deterrent in place.
>
> So let’s focus at GDPR as baseline and apply it as general rule of thumb.
>
> Kris
>
> On 23 Sep 2017, at 15:32, Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com 
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kris,
>>
>> I think I am largely in agreement with what you are saying. It is my 
>> view, and I think you are saying that it is yours too, that GDPR will 
>> be the most important influence in the ongoing development and 
>> harmonisation of global privacy standards. So GDPR is certainly 
>> something that we as a Working Group need to be paying attention to.
>>
>> After all, over 100 countries now have data protection laws, and 
>> given that many of these were modelled after the European Union’s 
>> 1995 Data Protection Directive, a desire to emulate best practices 
>> could very well see these laws updated, inspired, or influenced by 
>> GDPR in the near future...
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Ayden Férdeline
>> linkedin.com/in/ferdeline <http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline>
>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170923/f3626329/attachment-0001.html>