This needs to be a big R recommendation. Avri you have my support as well.

Privacy rights are an enormous part of our modern democratic gains. They 
are the most important things that we ever stand to lose. From them 
Freedom is derived.

I would be appalled by less then a consensus on this by NCSG. Robin said 
it: if speaking privacy is reputation-damaging ... then unfortunately we 
have no choice in engaging in reputation-damaging activities.

BTW, it's not "reputation-damaging" in any way: it's confirmation bias 
(confirmation of ill-thought, preconceived notions about NCSG) against 
which it would be unwise anyhow to try to fight. Those who would see us 
as ACLU-type of org ― and that would think that that is derogatory by 
association ― will just never be swayed by anything we do. Not that I 
would ever want to sway them, of course.

Nicolas


On 19/09/2013 1:06 PM, Ron Wickersham wrote:
> Thanks to Avri for firmly standing on fundamental principles and to tho
> beginning of what i hope is an endorsement by others on our list. I've
> seen first-hand the steering at the end of a process to produce a strong
> consensus that disregards the areas of discussion during deliberation 
> that a user rights view would be recognized in the final report, but then
> suddenly marginalized for the goal of accomplishing the appearance of
> full concensus...especially when the argument for ignoring these user
> rights is that business models need wide allowances for divergent 
> policies
> and that competition would give choice to the user even though these
> policies are buried deep in legaleeze in lengthly agreements and even
> those agreements are subject to change by simply posting a modification.
>
> -ron
>
> On Thu, 19 Sep 2013, Edward Morris wrote:
>
>> Thanks Avri, and Robin...
>>
>> ...and Wendy, and Kathy, and Roy and Amr and...the list goes on.
>>
>> In the year or so I've been actively involved in ICANN activities 
>> I've been
>> absolutely amazed at the lack of consideration given privacy rights 
>> by the
>> vast majority of the ICANN community. As far as I'm concerned, this is a
>> core issue for this SG. From the Article 29 letter to your work 
>> today, Avri,
>> if it's one thing this group seems to be united on it's the need to 
>> respect
>> and honour individual privacy. Privacy is not something that should be
>> relegated as a footnote to other concerns, it should be the fundamental
>> cornerstone of everything ICANN does in terms of data.
>>
>> I can't speak for anyone else, but if the question posed is does Avri 
>> Doria
>> speak for me on the issue of privacy the answer is absolutely. I have 
>> your
>> back and I'm sure most of us do. Thank you again for doing this: it's 
>> not
>> easing standing on principle in opposition to the type of forces in play
>> here, but you do it as well as anyone I have ever met. Thanks again.
>>
>> Ed Morris
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks, Avri,
>>>
>>> A couple points. First, on the underlying substantive issue (privacy
>>> rights). We definitely need to push for ICANN to develop an org-wide
>>> privacy policy that complies with international legal treaties and the
>>> privacy rights of Internet users. GAC and certain law enforcement 
>>> agencies
>>> along with the trademark industry have been pushing ICANN for years 
>>> to make
>>> it easier to track Internet users, and so we haven't been able to get
>>> anywhere with encouraging ICANN to begin to consider the privacy 
>>> rights of
>>> Internet users. But this may very well be the right moment to push for
>>> that policy goal at ICANN.
>>>
>>> On the issue of whether or not NCSG should just accept the wishes of 
>>> the
>>> commercial users and rubber stamp the report so we don't "hurt NCSG's
>>> reputation", all I can say is this argument is trotted out every 
>>> time NCSG
>>> stands on principle and refuses to just go along with the plans of 
>>> others.
>>> Remember in Costa Rica, when we were warned "it would be the death 
>>> of the
>>> GNSO" if NCSG did not go along with the plan to give special 
>>> privileges to
>>> the RedCross / Olympic Cmte without a proper PDP process? Well, NCSG's
>>> GNSO Councilor Rafik didn't go along with it, the Council couldn't 
>>> rubber
>>> stamp the proposal that day, and the world did not come to an end. If I
>>> had a dime for every time we were threatened with the "we won't 
>>> approve of
>>> you if you don't go along with our wishes" argument....
>>>
>>> If NCSG's reputation is "damaged" because we are the only place in 
>>> ICANN
>>> that recognizes the need for the org to deal with the privacy rights of
>>> Internet users, then so be it.
>>>
>>> My two cents,
>>> Robin
>>>
>>> On Sep 19, 2013, at 7:54 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> For me this needs to be a Recommendation (7.1, big R), not an extra
>>> consideration. This issue was within the purview of the group and the
>>> group bailed on it for lack of capability. Fine, then lets step and
>>> recommend that those that have the capability do so. In this age of
>>> world attention on privacy issues, I can't beleive we are still dancing
>>> around the point.
>>>>
>>>> I am currently working on getting the NCSG to endorse this. As the
>>> alternate chair of the NCSG Policy committee I beleive this is 
>>> something
>>> that will be supported by the NCSG. I will personally submit a minority
>>> position and work to get the NCSG to endorse it, if this 
>>> recommendation is
>>> not included in 7.1. For myself at this point, I will reject the entire
>>> report without this, as the report is incomplete without this as a 
>>> primary
>>> Recommendation. To my mind NCSG would be shirking it 
>>> responsibilities if
>>> we let this report go out without such a recommendation.
>>>>
>>>> Incidentally, my impression from the list discussion was that there 
>>>> was
>>> support, but that wording needed changing. It was changed.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that there are those who may be playing divide and 
>>>> conquer
>>> games behind the scenes, claiming that my position will hurt NCSG's
>>> reputation. I have bcc'e d the NCSG on this note so that they 
>>> themselves
>>> can determine if it is reputation damaging. There are others who are 
>>> are
>>> cynically claiming that I am going against the bottom-up model by 
>>> insisting
>>> on privacy considerations. I reject those claims.
>>>>
>>>> avri
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 19 Sep 2013, at 10:25, Mike O'Connor wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> i may have been the culprit here. Avri, my interpretation of the
>>> desultory conversation on the list was that there *wasn't* much 
>>> support for
>>> the idea. and then when you didn't show up on last week's call to
>>> pitch/push it, i forgot to bring it up. my bad -- sorry about that.
>>>>>
>>>>> let's try to have a vigorous conversation about this on the list, and
>>> drive to a conclusion on the call next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> Avri, you and i had a one-to-one email exchange about this and i
>>> suggested that this recommendation might fit better, and be more widely
>>> accepted, if it was in the privacy and data protection part of our 
>>> report
>>> (Section 7.3). could you give us an indication of whether acceptance of
>>> this version of the recommendation is required? in more casual 
>>> terms, is
>>> there any wiggle room here? i think it would be helpful for the rest of
>>> the group to know the framework for the conversation.
>>>>>
>>>>> carry on folks,
>>>>>
>>>>> mikey
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 18, 2013, at 6:39 PM, Avri Doria <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I was disappointed to not see the recommendation for the Issues 
>>>>>> report
>>> included in 7.1. I thought we had discussed it on this list and thee 
>>> had
>>> been little opposition, though there was some. I cannot support this
>>> report with a strong recommendation for follow on work on the Privacy
>>> issues. And, contrary to what others may beleive, I do not see any such
>>> work currently ongoing in ICANN. I think it i s unfortunate that we 
>>> keep
>>> pushing off this work and are not willing to face it directly. I 
>>> beleive I
>>> have the support of others in the NCSG, though the content of a 
>>> minority
>>> statement has yet to be decided on.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While still somewhat inadequate, I am ready to argue for going along
>>> with consensus on this document if the following is included in 7.1:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The WG discussed many of the issues involved in moving from having a
>>> registration currently governed under the privacy rules by one 
>>> jurisdiction
>>> in a thick whois to another jurisdiction, the jurisdiction of the 
>>> Registry
>>> in a thick whois. The WG did not feel it was competent to fully discuss
>>> these privacy issues and was not able to fully separate the privacy 
>>> issues
>>> involved in such a move from the general privacy issues that need to be
>>> resolved in Whois. there was also concern with intersection with other
>>> related Privacy issues that ICANN currently needs to work on. The 
>>> Working
>>> group therefore makes the following recommendation:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> . We recommend that the ICANN Board request a GNSO issues report to
>>> cover the issue of Privacy as related to WHOIS and other related GNSO
>>> policies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>
>>>>>> avri
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE:
>>> OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>>>
>>>
>>