Would have been best to be inclusive of other potential supporting
Constituencies before presenting it to NCUC, IMHO. It changes things
slightly, politically. We cut ourselves off from a chance to bond more
thoroughly than we still can.
But I don't mean to distribute blame, I merely mean to give my opinion
on abstract best practices for future processes.
Nicolas
On 28/06/2012 10:36 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
> Dear Alain,
>
> On the contrary, one constituency reaches a recommendation and then presents it to the other.
> Accept the recommendation or not, but the process is not improper.
> There may be some things that we do together,
> but for the most part constituencies will have separate initiatives.
>
> That is why we have separate constituencies.
> I assume that its why you all wanted a constituency of your own.
>
>
> avri
>
>
> Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Avri, If one seeks an NCSG position on an issue, starting say from an
>> NCUC
>> initiative, it seems reasonable to invite SG wide participation from
>> the
>> beginning. I call that being inclusive as early as possible.
>>
>> Let's see what NPOC members' feedback we get.
>>
>> Best, Alain
>>
>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> This was an NCUC initiative. At this point it its looking for
>> further
>>> support among the NCSG membership.
>>>
>>> If it being a NCUC initiative makes it a problem for NPOC, I am sure
>> we
>>> will all understand. In any case, the real value is for individuals
>> to
>>> forward it on to any privacy our data protection officials they may
>> have
>>> contract with - assuming they support the goal of getting such input
>> into
>>> the ICANN discussions.
>>>
>>> avri
>>>
>>>
>>> Alain Berranger <[log in to unmask] <javascript:;>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks Wendy,
>>>>
>>>> It would have been nice to be invited when you started the drafting.
>>>>
>>>> I will provide comments soonest convenient, so for now please do not
>>>> associate NPOC with the NCUC letter.
>>>>
>>>> Alain
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, June 28, 2012, Wendy Seltzer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi NCUC,
>>>>>
>>>>> As we discussed Tuesday, a drafting team met yesterday to write a
>>>> letter
>>>>> to privacy commissioners and organizations, noting our concerns
>> with
>>>> the
>>>>> privacy implications of the RAA draft's WHOIS data collection and
>>>>> retention requirements, and inviting them to send comments to the
>>>> ICANN
>>>>> Board.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks especially to Kim for getting us started, and to Joy, Avri,
>>>>> Rafik, Sam, and David for help revising. It's drafted on behalf of
>>>> NCUC,
>>>>> as that was where we held principal discussion, but of course NPOC
>> is
>>>>> welcome to join as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> The next step is to send it to Privacy Commissioners and privacy
>>>>> organizations, with a cover note if you have direct connections.
>>>> I'll
>>>>> keep a list of contacts we've made (and you can invite them to let
>> us
>>>>> know if they've sent comments, so we can track).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> --Wendy
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>>>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>>>> http://www.ceci.ca<
>>> http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>>>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>>>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>>>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
>>>> www.gkpfoundation.org
>>>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>>>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>>>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>>>> Skype: alain.berranger
>>>
>> --
>> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
>> Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
>> http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
>> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
>> www.schulich.yorku.ca
>> Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation,
>> www.gkpfoundation.org
>> NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
>> Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
>> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
>> Skype: alain.berranger
|
