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]>:

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]> 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]>:

Hi

On Mar 10, 2014, at 12:19 PM, Rafik Dammak <[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
[log in to unmask] (direct), [log in to unmask] (lists),
www.williamdrake.org
***********************************************