[Gnso-epdp-team] European Commission comments on Phase 1 report - additional information

farzaneh badii farzaneh.badii at gmail.com
Fri May 3 15:03:55 UTC 2019


I don't think it is appropriate to just brush off such criticism Chris by
saying that we are entitled to our opinion. Board is in danger of
advocating for a certain position and we raised this during our NCSG Board
meetings multiple times. CEO intended from the beginning to facilitate
access to WHOIS personal information. It is quite clear from the
communications.

I invite you to act as a Board liaison and not a policymaker. If the Board
thinks that disclosure should be done in a way it has envisioned, then what
are we doing here? We can wrap up the show.

Farzaneh


On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 10:55 AM Chris Disspain <chris at disspain.uk> wrote:

> Thanks Milton. You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> CD
>
> On 3 May 2019, at 17:52, Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu> wrote:
>
> Chris,
> We appreciate your relaying of information about ICANN Corp’s interactions
> with the EDPB. We also appreciate your efforts to clarify certain positions.
>
> With this last message, however, I think you are in danger of crossing the
> line into advocacy of a particular position, and this is inappropriate.
> Under the ICANN bylaws the community develops policy and the board reviews
> and approves community developed policies with an eye to the larger
> picture. As a board liaison to the EPDP, your job is to serve as an
> information channel between the team and the board and to advise the EPDP
> team about any issues and concerns the board has that the EPDP might not be
> taking into account. It is not to advocate for a particular position.
>
> With regard to “UAM,” it is already established policy, as developed by
> phase 1 of the EPDP, that we are no longer talking about “*access*”
> models we are talking about *disclosure* models.  See Recommendation 3 of
> the final report, which has been approved by the Council. So we’d
> appreciate it if you get up to speed and adopt the approved and correct
> terminology.
>
> Legitimately, the EC is motivated by BOTH the need to comply with its own
> law AND its desire for convenient disclosure processes. There is no
> inherent tension between these two as long as the disclosure processes are
> consistent with data protection principles. That will be a difficult job,
> so let us work it out. All stakeholders and views are represented here; the
> EC can and does speak for itself. So we don’t need your attempt to push a
> tendentious interpretation of their views upon us.
>
> Finally, when you say this:
> ….. that the EC’s view is that attempts to narrow ICANN’s purpose are
> counter-productive and the current wording needs to be revisited.
> No…you are so far off base that it is laughable. The EC’s position on
> Purpose 2 could not be clearer. It was directly challenged in their
> comments. Taking out selective snippets and trying to twist their words in
> ways that conform to the position you are pushing is not helping this
> process at all. It is also, as I said before, not an appropriate thing for
> a board member to be doing. Please stay in your lane, and let the
> multistakeholder process work.
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> School of Public Policy
> Internet Governance Project <https://internetgovernance.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190503/c7ff4c6d/attachment.html>


More information about the Gnso-epdp-team mailing list