[Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg] Electing a WG chair (or co-chairs)

[Nacer Adamou Saidou]

Hi Eric and all,
first of all, I want to say that this is my very first involvement with an ICANN working group, so I maybe wrong in my understanding.
But my understanding is that the output of our contribution is  based on consensus. That means also (once more according to my understanding) that (co)-chair, except some administrative duties, cannot change in their own direction the decision made from the whole group.
Please, let me know if I am wrong.
Best regards

Le 7 déc. 2013 à 20:34, ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net a écrit :

> Colleagues,
> 
> Back in 2001 I took a position at Engage with the responsibility of
> contributing to the W3C's Privacy Preferences Platform (P3P) work
> on privacy policy. We, the members of the P3P Specification Working
> Group, crafted a means for data collectors to announce to the data
> sources -- browser users -- their operational practices, consistent
> with the Data Protection Directive(s) of the European Union, the
> hybrid model of the OEDC member states (e.g., Japan, Canada), and
> the private contract model of the United States and several other
> common law cultures. It was not child's play to create a viable
> synthesis of these three legal regimes, all related to privacy and
> proxy.
> 
> As you all know very well, California State and/or Federal District
> Court for Southern California is not the only controlling jurisdiction
> we need to be informed by, nor is a private contract with a California
> domiciled 501(c)(3) the complete statement of rights at issue -- as
> registrants, registrars and registries, and more recent third parties
> involved in rights determination, are domiciled in other jurisdictions.
> 
> I prefer that the leadership of this working group include individuals
> who's first legal language is not the common law, and who have held
> positions of responsibility for data collection under the Directive(s)
> of the European Union.
> 
> While there are volunteers from Germany, which has an outstanding data
> protection regime, and from elsewhere, until none are able to offer
> the time necessary to function as a (co-)chair, I prefer that the
> role and responsibility go to one (or more) competent individuals
> not employed by in Reston. We can be sure that the interests of the
> data collecting businesses situated in whole or in part in Reston will
> be well represented, along with the interests of intellectual property
> managers situated in the nearby District of Columbia. We can avoid, if
> we choose, making these interests central and other interests peripheral.
> 
> In the course of its existence ICANN has harmed itself several times.
> 
> It privileged English (ASCII) over other Latin Script languages which
> use diacriticals (e.g., French, German, ..), and over languages that use
> other scripts (e.g., Chinese in Han Script), and allowed a vendor to
> determin its IDN technology and policy.  This was the direct cause
> of CNNIC starting a name server constellation in 2001 (I know, I was
> personally involved). This situation was not materially improved until
> the Bruxelles meeting, in the MOA space (ccTLDs), and this year, in the
> Contract space (gTLDs).
> 
> It privileged common law contractual obligations over national law
> obligations (as most registrars located outside of the US are well
> aware), creating a conflict of rule (ICANN) and law (states) for which
> very little benefit can be rationally claimed. It is only recently that
> ICANN has made some of its contracts jurisdictionally aware, affecting
> some registrant data access rights and responsibilities.
> 
> We are not, as a community, or as a collection of self-interested actors,
> where we were in 2012. We, and far more than we few ICANN insiders, are
> now Snowden-Informed, and any work in the area of privacy and proxies
> done today, if it is to last longer than today, must be different from
> what was "commercially acceptable" or "best current practice" before we
> all became Snowden-Informed.
> 
> I don't support Steve's proposal. Don may be a good choice, but I don't
> support Steve's selection of a chair, excluding all others, who may be
> as good choices.
> 
> Eric
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list
> Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg