I agree!
Kathy
:
> Here is what we put in the comments, with a minor edit and new bits in
> red at the end. I think it works. :
>
> On the subject of privacy, as raised in the the EWG report:
> We completely agree that:“As a major player in
> the ecosystem of the Internet, as the multi-‐stakeholder group which sets policy for
> the collection, use and disclosure of personal information related to
> domain names, it is important for ICANN to show corporate
> responsibility in promoting global compliance with best practices in
> data protection.”As noted in the EWG report, “the European Union has
> now agreed on what needs to be found in binding corporate rules for
> international corporations and entities which hold and transfer
> personal data”(page32). This will be a critical step forward when
> ICANN adopts it at the request of the EWG. It will create better
> compliance with the data protection laws in the many countries that
> have these national laws, including Japan, S.Korea, Canada and the
> European Union nations. Given the current crisis in Internet
> governance, it is high time that ICANN indicated its global
> understanding of relevant data protection law around the world, and
> adopted binding corporate rules that harmonize its data protection
> practices in a manner that meets the standards expected by the many
> jurisdictions with data protection law. While we note that the issue
> of binding corporate rules is under discussion at the EU in the
> context of impending data protection regulation, this is no reason for
> ICANN to refrain from moving forward, as an international organization
> operating in jurisdictions with data protection law that applies not
> just to customers, but to staff and volunteers as well. This action
> is long overdue and we applaud the EWG for raising it. We will work on
> any PDP that is struck to implement this proposal, and we encourage
> the Board to show leadership in this time of Internet crisis and adopt
> a less US-based stance to the issue of data protection. The global
> community is looking for true globalization initiatives, this is a
> good one and an easy one.
> Cheers Stephanie
> On 2014-03-12, at 9:14 AM, Rafik Dammak wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephanie,
>>
>> thanks for the comment, it reminds when we suggested to ICANN board
>> and CEO to investigate the possibility to join GNI (Global Network
>> Initiative) framework for example.
>> can you please phrase your comment in short description so we can use
>> it during the discussion?
>> we have netmundial proposal too .
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Rafik
>>
>>
>>
>> 2014-03-12 0:29 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
>> <[log in to unmask]
>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>
>> At the risk of sounding like a one-trick pony, it seems a
>> propitious time to comment to the Board that ICANN should take a
>> more proactive stance on privacy protection, given the current
>> controversy, and enact binding corporate rules for its global
>> operations. Just a statement.
>> I think, in the context of what Bill is proposing, that we should
>> use the time to point out that we believe in multi-stakeholderism
>> and we go around the globe promoting it to our more cynical
>> colleagues in civil society, but they have to give us a break.
>> Time to grow up and make it more real.
>> cheers Stephanie
>> PS and we need funding to go to Netmundial. :-)
>>
>> On 2014-03-11, at 6:59 AM, William Drake wrote:
>>
>>> Hi fik
>>>
>>> Understood, but I believe we should discuss with the board the
>>> actual substantive focus and implementation of their advisory
>>> groups as a stand alone item. Folding this into broader generic
>>> discussion of 'Top-down vs Bottom-up’ will result in us leaving
>>> with little real insight or engagement on the issues and how
>>> they’ll be addressed.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mar 11, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Rafik Dammak
>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Bill,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the comment, the issue of Globalization Advisory
>>>> Group is among the proposal #3 (I made the mistake to use the
>>>> acronym GAG...). indeed it is new matter to discuss about with
>>>> the board and understand what they are planning with such setup.
>>>>
>>>> Rafik
>>>>
>>>> 2014-03-11 17:57 GMT+09:00 William Drake <[log in to unmask]
>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi
>>>>
>>>> On Mar 10, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Rafik Dammak
>>>> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For the meeting with the board, we should send to them the
>>>>> topics to discuss , we have some proposals and would like
>>>>> to get membership feedback and suggestions:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Netmundial
>>>>>
>>>>> * Reconsideration process for TMCH+50 (Trademark
>>>>> Clearing House )
>>>>> * Top-down vs Bottom-up approaches: GAG, strategic
>>>>> panels, expert groups vs PDP
>>>>> * IANA/ICANN globalisation
>>>>> * Missing Nomcom seat for NPOC
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I suggest we talk to them about the President’s
>>>> Globalization Advisory Groups. As this is new, important,
>>>> not something we’ve talked about before, and they’re the
>>>> ones doing it, they might actually have something to say
>>>> about it.
>>>> http://www.icann.org/en/groups/other/globalization-19feb14-en.pdf.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> ***********************************************
>>> William J. Drake
>>> International Fellow & Lecturer
>>> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>>> University of Zurich, Switzerland
>>> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency,
>>> ICANN, www.ncuc.org <http://www.ncuc.org/>
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (direct),
>>> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> (lists),
>>> www.williamdrake.org <http://www.williamdrake.org/>
>>> ***********************************************
>>>
>>
>>
>
|