[council] EPDP Letter to the EDPB - comments by NCSG rep on 27 November 2018
icann at ferdeline.com
Thu Nov 29 15:11:26 UTC 2018
As mentioned on today's Council call in response to Darcy's question, please find below an extract from pages 19 to 21 of the [transcript of Tuesday’s EPDP](https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/transcript-epdp-gtld-registration-data-specs-27nov18-en.pdf) call by NCSG representative Stephanie Perrin (emphasis added). I share these comments as I do not think we have a consensus view as an EPDP team that the best path forward necessarily involves writing to the European Data Protection Board.
Thanks very much. Stephanie Perrin for the record. I’m actually shocked that we’re having this discussion about this because it just seems to me such a - I’m not going to be very diplomatic, possibly I need more coffee - such a silly idea at this point that I’m mystified as to how we think we’re going to get somewhere with it.
Now, the Non Commercial Stakeholder Group wrote to the Board saying, can you tell us what you have been finding out on the European Data Protection Board and all the other data commissioners you’ve been visiting for the past, well two or three years because Nigel Hickson, that was his job to go out and lobby the Berlin data commissioner a few years ago, a couple years ago, and then a huge boarding party went to the Hong Kong Data Commissioners Conference and had a side meeting with the data commissioners.
Frankly, all we go back in the way of feedback is a blog, and a blog that doesn't actually say anything. So how these conversations went? Heaven only knows. The email - the letters that we've been getting back from the data commissioners are not, in my view, very comforting. And I’ve written those kinds of letters so I think I have an informed view. I cannot believe that we would actually consider writing to them, pestering them yet again with ill-formed comment before we finalized the report. Yes, our timetable says we only have one comment period but that’s not their fault. And the fact that the report as I said and have been saying for the last several weeks isn't ready to go out yet because there are too many open questions, I can't imagine that we would send that to them.
I agree with what Kristina and Marc have said far more politely, but I think you have to look at it from the other side and quite frankly, they're going to do what they did when the RDS sent questions to them, a lawyer advising the Article 29 Group actually contacted me and said, can't you get these guys to hire a lawyer? So sadly, we’re another couple of years down the road, year and a half, I don't know what it is, nearly two, and the answer to that question is apparently not; we don't have independent counsel advising this group.
So the questions are not really - they're improved but they - they're not the kind of thing you take to the overseers. I just can't believe we’re having this discussion. Please, explain. And if you really insist on sending a letter then have everybody that has accompanied this (crew) to all of these visits, the Hong Kong Data Commissioner’s Conference, come in and brief us so that we know exactly what's been said. Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the council