[Gnso-epdp-team] Latest version of Automated Use Cases document

[Mueller, Milton L]

I thank Alan for flagging this issue (even though it was not part of MarkSV’s use cases):

  1.  The additional mix of the 'recommendation' concept into nudging towards automation is new. It is also unhelpful. Calling a spade a spade, a "recommendation and feedback" imposition on the decision maker is flipping the actual requirement here. The controller may tell the central body that certain decisions can be automated (as we discussed)- not vice versa (notwithstanding that this is only possible where the central body has the data, which is again not currently envisaged in the swimlane model). To confirm the central body, acting in the factual guise of a processor, must act solely on the instructions of the controller in 'permitted' instances. To reverse this assumption i.e. to have the processor continually recommend chipping away at the clear and sole instructions of the controller is anathema to the spirit of article 28 and will draw the ire of privacy by default; disclosures on a sliding scale of automated 'recommendations', based on observed and solely empirical data from decisions; (assuming we are not commissioning an AI who can understand the nuance of a balancing test), then observed repetition of decisions does not a rule make; errors in judgment may occur, and repetition of that error does not make it less of an error.
NCSG shares these concerns and has flagged this in its “can’t live with” Issues Sheet

Dr. Milton L Mueller
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20200204/0d7d488a/attachment.html>