[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Here's an idea...

[Stephanie Perrin]

I agree Steve, and am so glad that you have joined this 
discussion....maybe you can help us get past the sticking points that 
are driving us nuts.

As for the annotated EWG report....I guess I had better get at it!  
Maybe I can serialize it like Dickens did....

cheers Stephanie


On 2018-02-15 17:25, Steve Crocker wrote:
> Stephanie,
>
> I think we're coming at the same issue but from slightly different 
> points of view.  If I understand your position, you want to minimize 
> the amount of information that's collected, kept and/or made available 
> to others.  My position is I want a clear understanding of what those 
> roles mean and hence what authority and responsibility is associated 
> with those roles. From this I expect it will be possible to have a 
> sensible dialog about who may have access to that information and what 
> they're allowed to do with it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>
>      I did indeed, as well as Rob's reply....I need to understand all
>     these matters better, but my urge would be of course to minimize
>     the data fields.  If the MPAA or Facebook have need of numerous
>     contact fields, perhaps an argument could be made to allow them to
>     do that, but they should not be mandatory.
>
>     On 2018-02-15 17:03, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>     Stephanie,
>>
>>     I would be an eager reader of your annotated version of the EWG
>>     report.  Let me ask that you first read my note about the roles
>>     of the contacts and see if that affects your thinking.
>>
>>     Thanks,
>>
>>     Steve
>>
>>
>>     On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated
>>         version of the EWG report, which would of course discuss
>>         where I as the lone privacy advocate was overruled....Rod
>>         will no doubt back me up when I say that I  nagged everyone
>>         to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN stakeholders
>>         (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out.  However, I think we
>>         should add to our document library the recent guidance
>>         document produced by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in
>>         the context of GDPR.  It is still a terrific solution to this
>>         mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798
>>         <http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798>
>>
>>         cheers Stephanie
>>
>>
>>         On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
>>>         So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly.  Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard.  I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
>>>
>>>         Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work.  Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
>>>
>>>         I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already.  Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
>>>
>>>         Cheers,
>>>
>>>         Rod
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         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  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         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
>>         <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/20180215/8bdcbe7f/attachment.html>