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/> >>> *********************************************** >>> >> >> >