[Gnso-epdp-team] High-level notes and action items - EPDP Team F2F - 9-11 September
icann at ferdeline.com
Sat Sep 14 22:06:00 UTC 2019
I'm sorry, I disagree. I think this is very important, and asking the wrong questions or presenting information with the wrong framing to an external body could have implications for our work. I appreciate that not everyone may have an interest in reviewing these questions, and this does not need to be mandatory homework. But for those of us who are keen to review the questions, we should have the opportunity to do so. The potential for damage to ICANN's reputation here is high, and we should be working to avoid such an outcome.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, 15 September 2019 00:01, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
> My understanding was different. It was not that
> she was uncomfortable with the questions (or
> whatever is in the overall document) but that she
> wanted to first pass it by the EU people who were
> acting as advisors (ie partners in formulating
> the doc). There is not point in sharing what is
> there now if it may be completely changed - that would be a waste of our time.
> At 14/09/2019 05:42 PM, Ayden FÃ©rdeline wrote:
> > Thanks Alan, I think your recollection is
> > correct, but I personally found that response
> > from ICANN Org to be unsatisfactory.
> > Before these questions are being shared with any
> > third party, I think we as a chartered working
> > group should be able to review them so that we
> > have a fuller understanding of what discussions
> > are taking place that could potentially impact our work.
> > I think this is particularly important given
> > Elena herself expressed discomfort with the way
> > in which the questions were worded. If ICANN
> > staff are not fully comfortable with the
> > questions, I think we should be able to read
> > through them ASAP and to offer speedy input on
> > suggested improvements or revisions.
> > I appreciate the questions are still a working
> > document, and it's with that understanding that
> > we would be offering suggested improvements -
> > with a vision only to making sure we get
> > information back that is actionable and useful for us as a working group.
> > Best wishes, Ayden
> > â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€� Original Message â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�
> > On Saturday, 14 September 2019 22:14, Alan
> > Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca wrote:
> > > My recollection is that Elena said that she did
> > > not feel comfortable sharing the memo now, prior
> > > to consulting with the EU folks who are helping
> > > them, but would share it with us once that is
> > > done and prior to submitting to the EDPB.
> > > Alan
> > > At 12/09/2019 09:07 PM, Ayden FÃƒÂ©rdeline wrote:
> > >
> > > > Also, I appreciate that it was not agreed as an
> > > > action item, but is there any way in which we
> > > > might be able to keep an open dialogue with the
> > > > Strawberry Team and - importantly - to see their
> > > > questions they plan to submit to the European
> > > > Data Protection Board before they are submitted
> > > > to any external party? I think we can all
> > > > appreciate they would be in draft form - that's
> > > > why we would like to help get the wording (and
> > > > sentiment) correct, and to avoid reputational
> > > > damage to ICANN if the wrong questions are
> > > > asked. I realise this was requested already, and
> > > > there was pushback from the Strawberry Team, but
> > > > I think it's important and inconsistent with
> > > > ICANN's stated commitments to transparency that
> > > > we are all ignorant as to what is being asked
> > > > that has a high potential to impact our work.
More information about the Gnso-epdp-team