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

Sat Sep 23 13:47:39 UTC 2017

Is one of there ways of exploring how to resolve the issue including making whois privacy for free for individual registrants?

--
John Bambenek

> On Sep 22, 2017, at 21:06, Chuck <consult at cgomes.com> wrote:
> 
> Without in any way detracting from the concern for ICANN transparency and the need for keeping our PDP informed, I think it is important for us to recognize a few things:
> The GDPR is set to go into effect in May 2018.
> While I am cautiously hopeful that the RDS PDP WG will improve progress in our work, there is no way we will be close to done by May 2018.
> In the meantime, contracted parties will be faced with some serious conflicts between the terms of their agreements with ICANN and the GDPR that could result in significant fines if they continue to comply with their ICANN agreements.
> Therefore, it does not seem unreasonable for ICANN staff to be exploring ways to resolve this dilemma until policy work can be completed.
>  
> Chuck
>  
> 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] On Behalf Of Andrew Sullivan
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 11:09 AM
> To: 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
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20170923/4423e96d/attachment.html>