[gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Here's an idea...

[Stephanie Perrin]

I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated version of the 
EWG report, which would of course discuss where I as the lone privacy 
advocate was overruled....Rod will no doubt back me up when I say that 
I  nagged everyone to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN 
stakeholders (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out.  However, I think we 
should add to our document library the recent guidance document produced 
by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in the context of GDPR.  It is 
still a terrific solution to this 
mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798

cheers Stephanie


On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
> So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly.  Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard.  I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
>
> Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work.  Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
>
> I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already.  Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rod
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list
> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-rds-pdp-wg/attachments/20180215/cb2934cb/attachment.html>