Sure - I went back and found a previous version, and added comments
noting where the changes had been made. Please forgive the rookie
mistake :)

I understand the concerns about privacy, and wouldn't suggest removing
them entirely, but I'm also not sure we should frontload them, or make
them a central focus of the submission (especially if it seems like
they're already charting a good course in this area - and taking the
necessary precautions). Having heard claims of "privacy" being thrown
around with regard to everything from board deliberations to
commercial information during the WS2 discussions, the last thing we
want is for them to start taking an expansive view of that interest,
or to get gun-shy about developing new datasets and taking the program
forward as a result of these concerns. We want them to take
appropriate precautions and redact material where necessary - I don't
think we want privacy challenges to be used as an excuse to curtail
the ODI.

Right now there's still two references to the need to take care with
regard to personal information - which in my opinion expresses
the point sufficiently.


On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 7:09 PM, Elsa S <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I did not see the edits you made, have you suggested them? Or simply edited
> them?
>
> I do tend to agree that sometimes privacy could impede on the extent of
> transparency, however as NCSG fights for both, it would be important to flag
> that some personal data should be kept private. Before we went through the
> spreadsheet and the links thoroughly, some data elements were on the surface
> related to fellowship data, nexgen data, data about councilors at the gnso,
> etc.. and we were unsure how deep those datasets were until we checked some
> of the links and figured out - tentatively - how much data would be
> published.
>
> Point being, even though we checked the links and kind of had a sense that
> privacy in certain important cases is respected, we can never be sure, and
> we cannot take part in leaking such elements given our constant fight for
> privacy as NCSG. Which is why we mentioned it several times!
>
> Your point is taken Michael, but could you kindly go back to the document
> and make sure that your changes be tracked as suggested? This way members
> could also comment on those suggestions :)
>
> Thanks for the efforts,
>
> Elsa
> —
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 3:47 AM Michael Karanicolas <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Thanks so much for taking the initiative in drafting this, and for
>> your thorough engagement with the ODI. I apologize I haven't been more
>> engaged on this issue recently, the last month or so has been a bit
>> hectic.
>>
>> I wanted to push back a bit on the suggested inclusion of all these
>> references to privacy though, as I think that in this context they are
>> unnecessary and counterproductive. In particular, the comment leads
>> with a statement that: "accuracy and transparency must always be
>> balanced against the fundamental right to privacy". That statement is
>> factually incorrect, since many (most?) of the listed datasets don't
>> have any substantial privacy interest in them, so there's no real
>> "balancing" to do in these cases. Moreover, I think we want to avoid
>> endorsing the kind of expansive understandings of privacy that could
>> have it applied to, say, board deliberations, to raise restrictions on
>> that kind of information to the level of a human right. This sort of
>> thinking is more common than you might think, and we should be careful
>> not to appear to be supporting it, even though we are firm believers
>> in the right to privacy as it applies to personal information.
>>
>> Right now, privacy is mentioned 3 times. I edited out the first two,
>> and replaced the last one with a reference to personal information.
>>
>> Best wishes, and thanks again for taking this forward.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 11:17 AM, Juan Alejo Peirano
>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> > Hi Elsa,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your message. Please find some comments below in between
>> > lines.
>> >
>> > El El vie, 20 de jul. de 2018 a las 01:23, Elsa S <[log in to unmask]>
>> > escribió:
>> >>
>> >> Hi Juan,
>> >>
>> >> Thank you very much for your comments! Any comment is very welcome,
>> >> especially a constructive one like this one.
>> >>
>> >> We do agree that the data labeled “restricted” should not be disclosed,
>> >> however, we thought that it would be best that ICANN disclose to the
>> >> public
>> >> the reason why they are restricted. We understand why it’s best that
>> >> they be
>> >> kept restricted, however it is a responsible act from ICANN to include
>> >> a
>> >> small description explaining the
>> >>
>> >> restriction.
>> >
>> >
>> > Totally agree with the fact that ICANN should make the wording used on
>> > the
>> > spreadsheet as understandable and clear as possible.
>> >
>> > My comment aimed towards that it is mentioned on our document that the
>> > restriction and the clarification of the term should be addressed as an
>> > error of the provided spreadsheet. From my point of view, it is not an
>> > error
>> > given the intrinsic characteristics of the described data.As I mentioned
>> > on
>> > the document, I would prefer to address this issue in a different
>> > section of
>> > our statement. But again, I’m in favor of asking for clarification of
>> > any
>> > unclear term used on the spreadsheet.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Does that answer your point?
>> >>
>> >> Best,
>> >>
>> >> Elsa
>> >> —
>> >
>> >
>> > Thank you again for your response and time spent on this matter!
>> >
>> > Juan
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Jul 19, 2018 at 3:32 PM Juan Alejo Peirano
>> >> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> Hi Ayden,
>> >>>
>> >>> Thank you for your response! Being this a large group of people with
>> >>> diverse interests, drafting a document with the mentioned
>> >>> time-constrains is
>> >>> quite a challenge. I don't want my comments to be too thorough on the
>> >>> technical side - some times it doesn't add anything to the substance
>> >>> and
>> >>> it's just a pain in the a**. That's why I wanted to make sure that I'm
>> >>> in
>> >>> line with the dynamics of the group.
>> >>>
>> >>> +1 to the following:
>> >>> - Hi Elsa et al, thanks for starting this effort and drafting this
>> >>> comment
>> >>>
>> >>> All the best!
>> >>>
>> >>> Juan
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> El jue., 19 jul. 2018 a las 20:18, Ayden Férdeline
>> >>> (<[log in to unmask]>) escribió:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Juan, thanks for flagging this and welcome to the NCSG! Your
>> >>>> explanation sounds very sensible. (And it is perfectly acceptable to
>> >>>> make
>> >>>> comments about the substance of our statements that are in the
>> >>>> process of
>> >>>> being drafted on this mailing list.)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi Elsa et al, thanks for starting this effort and drafting this
>> >>>> comment. I have made a few suggested edits to the document now.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Best wishes, Ayden
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
>> >>>> On 19 July 2018 8:56 PM, Juan Alejo Peirano
>> >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>
>> >>>> First of all, thank you for having me in this great group. Hope that
>> >>>> my
>> >>>> comments would be of value, to address the interests of the group in
>> >>>> the
>> >>>> best way possible.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> A quick question first, do we need to comment on the shared document
>> >>>> or
>> >>>> by email?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Giving that this is my first comment, I would prefer to do it by
>> >>>> email,
>> >>>> sorry for that :)
>> >>>>
>> >>>> My comment is regarding the point 3 of the doc section "Errors and
>> >>>> omissions".
>> >>>> The restricted files appear to be related with configuration files
>> >>>> (particularly TLDs zone files and root zone servers files) and for
>> >>>> security
>> >>>> reason, it is sensible for them not to be available as Open Data.
>> >>>> Configurations zone files could be use for cyberattacks, especially
>> >>>> if the
>> >>>> attacker knows how the DNS zone is defined on the server.
>> >>>> I'm totally in favor of asking for clarification why the term
>> >>>> restricted
>> >>>> is used on the spreadsheet, but I would not push for access of such
>> >>>> files,
>> >>>> it would be a risk for the integrity of the DNS zones. Also, I would
>> >>>> not
>> >>>> classify that as an "error" on the document, from a technical
>> >>>> perspective
>> >>>> the classification "restricted" makes sense.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please let me know if I'm off topic at any point of this comment.
>> >>>> Being
>> >>>> this my first, I could be totally wrong and out of  scope from the
>> >>>> interests
>> >>>> of the group.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Thank you!
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
>> >>>>
>> >>>> El jue., 19 jul. 2018 a las 18:58, Elsa S (<[log in to unmask]>)
>> >>>> escribió:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Hi all,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> It is our pleasure to share with you the draft public comment on the
>> >>>>> Open Data Initiative (ODI) which Yazid, Antonella, Shahul, Akinremi
>> >>>>> and
>> >>>>> myself worked on over the past week, with the help of Rafik!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Comments on the ODI Datasets and Metadata opened in June this year,
>> >>>>> where ICANN asked the community for advice as to which datasets in
>> >>>>> their
>> >>>>> shared inventory should be published first. The publishing
>> >>>>> chronology would
>> >>>>> be based on the comments ICANN receives, and the aim of sharing the
>> >>>>> data
>> >>>>> according to what the CEO's Blog post mentioned, would be to
>> >>>>> increase
>> >>>>> evidence-based policy development.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> The dataset inventory includes 232 elements on all sorts of topics,
>> >>>>> SGs
>> >>>>> and Cs. We went through them as carefully as we could on this
>> >>>>> spreadsheet
>> >>>>> which you could also take a look at, and our conclusions were
>> >>>>> drafted in
>> >>>>> this google doc. At this point, we need your input keeping in mind
>> >>>>> NCSG's
>> >>>>> priorities. We thank everyone who contributed, and any member who
>> >>>>> will
>> >>>>> contribute to make this comment more fit to submit. Note that the
>> >>>>> closing
>> >>>>> date is in a week's time, so the sooner the contributions, the
>> >>>>> better for us
>> >>>>> all! :)
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Our suggestion for most efficiency would be for you to read the
>> >>>>> google
>> >>>>> doc first, check the spreadsheet, then add any comments or
>> >>>>> suggestions to
>> >>>>> the comment accordingly.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Please do let us know if there is anything that needs further
>> >>>>> elaboration, and happy reading!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Best,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Elsa
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>> --
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Elsa Saade
>> >>>>> Consultant
>> >>>>> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>> >>>>> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> Juan Alejo Peirano
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Juan Alejo Peirano
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> --
>> >>
>> >> Elsa Saade
>> >> Consultant
>> >> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
>> >> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade
>> >
>> > --
>> > Juan Alejo Peirano
>
> --
> --
>
> Elsa Saade
> Consultant
> Gulf Centre for Human Rights
> Twitter: @Elsa_Saade