[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: WSGR Final Memorandum

Tue Sep 26 23:30:36 UTC 2017

Please see my responses below Allison.

Chuck

From: allison nixon [mailto:elsakoo at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:30 PM
To: Chuck <consult at cgomes.com>
Cc: RDS PDP WG <gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] FW: WSGR Final Memorandum

Wait a second.

"independent answers to the same questions we asked the European data protection experts earlier in the year"

[Chuck Gomes] That was a request from WG members who felt that the DP experts might be biased.  The questions were developed by the WG.  There were two primary reasons for using the same questions: 1) both groups would be responding to the same questions and therefore make it easy to compare; 2) the questions were approved by the WG.

So we weren't allowed to ask questions of these legal experts? You know, they can't magically divine all legitimate use cases. The session with the EU data protection experts earlier this year is the exact same one we objected to because anti abuse use cases got exactly zero representation. So why choose that exact set of questions again especially since an entire group of people have joined the group afterwards(actually, due to this specific problem of lack of representation)? And then label it "final", really.

[Chuck Gomes] We didn’t ask them to consider use cases except as they were relevant to the questions we asked; that is our job and we prepared a list of those a long time ago.  We asked them to focus on their understanding of European Data Protection law.  Our WG has a good mix of people that use RDS data for different uses.

Havent gone through it yet, will do so as i get time. Expecting to see the same result one can expect when one doesn't represent entire groups of constituencies.

[Chuck Gomes] What do you mean by representing ‘entire groups of constituencies’?  Do you represent an entire constituency?  Are you aware of any constituencies who are not represented in the WG?  If so, please encourage them to participate.

On Sep 26, 2017 5:30 PM, "Chuck" <consult at cgomes.com <mailto:consult at cgomes.com> > wrote:

As most of you recall, at the request of multiple WG members, we decided in early June to engage a law firm with experience in European data protection law to provide our WG with independent answers to the same questions we asked the European data protection experts earlier in the year.  The final report from that effort is what Marika sent to the list shortly after our WG call today; it is attached to this message as well.

All members are requested to review this report by Friday of this week if possible.  The leadership team has prepared a list of principles that are excerpted from the WSGR Final Report and/or from the Data Expert answers that we think will be relevant to our ongoing work. We have asked the small advisory group that we formed in early June to review the principles and let us know if the excerpts are accurate and complete.  After they have had time to respond, we will finalize the principles document and send it to the full WG for all to review; our goal is to do that by the end of this week so that we can use it in our WG meeting next week.

It is the opinion of the leadership team that the information the Data Protection experts provided has been confirmed by WSGR in their final report, albeit with more detail in some cases.  We also believe that our objective of obtaining an independent analysis of the questions has been met, so it is now time for us to put the information to use in answering the first four questions in our charter and that is the plan starting next week.  To facilitate that, the principles will be mapped to the first four charter questions, a task that is now underway.

I am sure this WG could debate the answers received for the next six months but we are not going to do that.  We received answers from the Data Protection experts.  Some feared bias so we obtained an independent analysis.  That analysis confirms the information that we had already been given with some clarifying insights.  It is now time to apply that information to our deliberation and finish answering critical questions in our charter and develop RDS requirements for Phase 1.

If I left anything out or anyone on the leadership team wants to add anything, please feel free to do.

Chuck

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 <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg-bounces at icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Marika Konings
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 9:54 AM
To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org> 
Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] WSGR Final Memorandum

Dear All,

As discussed during today’s meeting, please find attached for your review and consideration the final memorandum from Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, LLP (WSGR) concerning the final responses to EU data protection questions re. gTLD Registration Directory data. Chuck will follow up on this message shortly with further instructions and next steps. 

Best regards,

Marika

Marika Konings

Vice President, Policy Development Support – GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) 

Email: marika.konings at icann.org <mailto:marika.konings at icann.org>   

Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO

Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses <http://learn.icann.org/courses/gnso>  and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages <http://gnso.icann.org/sites/gnso.icann.org/files/gnso/presentations/policy-efforts.htm#newcomers> . 

_______________________________________________
gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org <mailto: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/20170926/fe171790/attachment-0001.html>