[council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process

Michele Neylon - Blacknight michele at blacknight.com
Wed Jun 13 10:24:53 UTC 2018


I agree.

The key point that I think many of us agree on is that knowledge / training, call it what you will, is highly beneficial in general. One of the issues we ran into repeatedly in the RDS PDP was that people either were not familiar with the subject matter beyond their own, specific narrow interest and / or they had little to no familiarity with how ICANN’s processes in terms of policy development work.

In the case of this ePDP any member of the group that is eventually formed will need to have a basic grounding in several key areas including privacy and GDPR.

While certification is “nice” I also agree that it should not be a requirement and I would have issues with ICANN paying thousands of Euro to give people this kind of training. If someone wants to get certified in privacy / GDPR or anything else I’m sure that will help them further their careers, but last time I checked neither ICANN as a whole nor the GNSO specifically is a training camp for people.

As for providing primers – I think it’s a good idea and if I can help I’d be happy to.



Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting, Colocation & Domains
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Personal blog: https://michele.blog/
Some thoughts: https://ceo.hosting/
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,R93 X265,Ireland  Company No.: 370845

From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> on behalf of Rubens Kuhl <rubensk at nic.br>
Date: Wednesday 13 June 2018 at 02:11
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process

I'll repeat a point I made in chat today: requiring and providing training is not excluding, but requiring certification is. Actually, for who is paying for the training, the actual knowledge is more important than the certification, which only benefits the certified person. So while I would find reasonable that someone that happens to have a certification to excuse himself/herself from the training, I don't see us establishing a certification as requisite.

And if that changes the price, every certification (opposed to training) should come on that person's dime, not GNSO's. And while I like IAPP because it seems to have a more neutral tone instead of the Europe x World Manichaeism, I believe we could look at other options.

As for themes, I think that the other than GDPR could come from our internal development efforts. For instance, picket fence, trademarks, abuse investigation, registrar operations, RDAP... let me throw people under the bus without consulting them just to indicate how we could provide primer sessions on these angles making for a "Renaissance" WG:
Picket Fence - Becky Burr
Trademarks - Heather Forrest
Abuse investigation - Dave Piscitello
Registrar operations - Michele Neylon
RDAP - Scott Hollenbeck


On 12 Jun 2018, at 11:51, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>> wrote:

Thanks Carlos.

Actually, you agree with me.  I don’t think we should have any gatekeeping barriers, such as IAPP certifications, designed to exclude anyone.  But, if we are going to go down the path of exclusion, and I hope we don’t, it shouldn’t just be for one privacy skill set which would result in an unbalanced ePDP WG.  I think some 101 in both GDPR and Trademarks is more than sufficient to ensure everyone on the ePDP WG has a common vocabulary.  I’m surprised by the resistance on the call today to the idea and the steadfast holding to the notion of gatekeeping IAPP certification which will result in exclusions from the team and undermine its outcomes from Day 1.


From: Carlos Raul Gutierrez [mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2018 9:32 AM
To: McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>>
Cc: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com<mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>; GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process

It was a very interesting Council call today, of which I could only follow the initial 2/3 or so.
After the call I went back to this ideas of Ayden and Paul, and I found myself in disagreement with both of you.
Maybe because I'm an economist that doesn't want to become a pseudo lawyer in either trademark law or in data protection, my needs t o follow the ePDP in case i'm not qualified to participate (only to vote...) are different:
My question is to what degree does WHOIS have a bias for or against both, trademark law and GDPR. As some might know, we economist are all about efficiency and efficiency loses. And my understanding is that any change in WHOIS, either planned or imposed, creates great efficiency losses to our members of the CPH. And in some cases, those efficiency loses cost a lot of money!
The Bonner Landesgericht put an interesting efficiency concept on the table: Datensparsamkeit. (something like be stingy with data -collection-).
So from my personal perspective, and I repeat, independently if I'm qualified or not to be a member of the ePDP, my basic question is and would remain until we vote on the policy proposal, is how a new regulation that looks for collecting LESS data, can be an operational, or even financial burden to the members of the CPH.
For that I don't need more knowledge on either Trademark and/or Privacy Law. What I need are hard facts, best expressed by numbers of dollars.
With that SOI, I express my interest to be part of the ePDP, either as member, or else as unqualified bystander with a vote on the final decision.

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
ISOC Costa Rica Chapter
skype carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176
Apartado 1571-1000

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:28 PM, McGrady, Paul D. <PMcGrady at winston.com<mailto:PMcGrady at winston.com>> wrote:
Thanks Ayden.

Tricky though, since those of us representing consumers that are protected by intellectual property laws from confusing misuses of marks often feel that those participating in WG’s don’t understand the fundamentals of trademark laws either.  Certainly in the case of this EPDP we would want people to have the basics of trademark law as well.  Perhaps instead of using these useful skills sets as gatekeepers, we ask staff to develop curriculum for the first session or two hitting these two issues and setting forth some basic vocabulary.  I’d be happy to participate with staff in the effort from the trademark side if you would be happy to participate with staff in the effort from the data protection side.


Paul D. McGrady


Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601-9703

D: +1 312-558-5963

F: +1 312-558-5700

Bio<http://www.winston.com/en/who-we-are/attorneys/mcgrady-paul-d.html> | VCard<http://www.winston.com/vcards/996.vcf> | Email<mailto:pmcgrady at winston.com> | winston.com<http://www.winston.com/>


From: council [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org>] On Behalf Of Ayden Férdeline
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2018 3:12 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>>
Subject: [council] Suggestion for membership criteria of proposed Expedited Policy Development Process

Dear all,

I have just finished reviewing the proposed agenda for our meeting next week along with the mindmap that Council leadership and staff have developed (thanks for doing this!).

I would like to put forward a suggestion for the Expedited Policy Development Process (EPDP) team criteria. While the scope of the EPDP remains unclear at present, what I took away from the call between the Board and the Council on Tuesday was that compliance with the law is crucial. As such I think it is imperative that *all* members be able to demonstrate that they have a basic understanding of the principles and legal terms of data protection.

I would like to request that any community member who is appointed to the EPDP, or staff member supporting the EPDP, be able to demonstrate they have completed at least 3 hours of data protection training. I do not think this would be a huge burden, but I think it would make work easier, as there should be a common understanding of essential terms.

There are short half-day 'Data Protection 101' classes run by institutions like the policy neutral International Association of Privacy Professionals, whose courses only use definitions of terms that have been defined in law for over 20 years.

For those who don't hold this certification, I would like to request that ICANN reimburse the members of the EPDP for their modest and reasonable costs in obtaining it.

I would like to hear your thoughts here, however I would also like to ask that this suggestion please be given serious consideration. Thank you.

Best wishes,
Ayden Férdeline

The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. If this message has been received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author. Any tax advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other taxpayer) to avoid penalties under applicable tax laws and regulations.

council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

council mailing list
council at gnso.icann.org<mailto:council at gnso.icann.org>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20180613/21b990a6/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the council mailing list