[council] GAC Communique response

[Johan Helsingius]

Thanks, Marie,

Michele (and others), how do you feel about this suggestion?

Could we please have all suggestions/opinions in before 23:59 UTC,
so the document can be frozen?

	Julf

On 16-04-19 16:50, Marie Pattullo wrote:
> Thanks to all the drafters for your work on this!
> 
>  
> 
> The BC proposes the following amendment to point 1(iv):
> 
>  
> 
> iv) Any technical solutions need to be designed so that they take into
> consideration the policies they need to handle. While some may argue
> that systems are “flexible”enough to allow for a broad variety of
> policies, one such policy which is critical, and which should be a
> policy output from Phase 2 of the EPDP, is that the system must
> incorporate well-understood, current state-of-the-art “privacy by
> design” principles for online systems. The Council trusts that it will
> be fully informed of, and implicated where appropriate in, the scoping
> and execution of any parallel technical effort to define such a policy.
> 
> that is not the same as “privacy by design” which is probably what is
> called for. Due to the nature of ICANN’s PDP processes, it may be
> premature to attempt to launch parallel work on this.
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks again,
> 
>  
> 
> Marie
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
> Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 6:51 PM
> To: GNSO Council List <council at gnso.icann.org>
> Subject: [council] GAC Communique response
> 
>  
> 
> The suggested GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique attached.
> 
> Google docs version at:
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WODNWffxy_dn6WRXV-_mJAwPhlh5V57T3L94BwQEtTE
> 
>  
> 
>                 Julf
> 
>  
>