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
>
|
