Hi all,

With enormous thanks to the drafters and re-drafters, shocked and otherwise
of this.

Hereby the official final call on Stephanie's revised Draft 5; any final
comments?

This draft closes at 1500 UTC today.

All the best, Maria


On 1 August 2014 11:04, Stephanie Perrin <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

>  Thanks, Sam! Responses to your comments:
> 1) I have discussed this a bit with Avri and I am reluctant to drop the
> Snowden reference, even if it is a wee bit inflammatory....this is partly
> because I am tired of talking in general terms about public policy, they
> will simply interpret that as compliance with law enforcement demands, not
> privacy expectations of consumers.
> 2) agreed, I am tempted to say that in the comment but resisting
> 3) re the typos, I will have to go back, check the quotes, and square
> bracket/sic them.  thanks!
> cheers stephanie
>
> On 2014-07-31, 13:19, Sam Lanfranco wrote:
>
> It is late in the time left for revising this document so I will just
> offer three short comments without going in and attempting to wordsmith
> inside the document. Food for though!
>
> #1:  Page 1: As part of the opening logic to the submission the text as
> written is:
>
> *In the matter of protection of personal and confidential information,
> which is a very newsworthy issue in the 21st century, privacy practices are
> a matter of consumer trust, and therefore high risk for those operating an
> Internet business.  Even if customers have obediently complied with demands
> for excessive collection and disclosure of personal information up to this
> point, in the current news furor over Snowden and the cooperation of
> business with national governments engaged in surveillance, this could
> change with the next news story.  The Internet facilitates successful
> privacy campaigns.*
>
> I would suggest that the submission focus in immediately on ICANN practice
> and evolving policy on the protection of personal and confidential
> information, and not so much Snowden and news stories.
>
> [Possible revision]
>
> *In the matter of protection of personal and confidential information on
> the Internet social norms and public policy are evolving and ICANN should
> be in the forefront of helping define workable practice, as well as
> bringing its contract language in line with public policy.  It is bad ICANN
> business practice to put registrars at odds with national privacy policy.
> It also jeopardizes registrars’ consumer trust and puts at risk the
> business of those operating an Internet business. *
>
> #2: [Comment] There is a saying about the Catholic Church, to the effect
> that dealing with social norms it always arrives a little late and out of
> breath. ICANN is acting in a similar way. ICANN could both handle this in
> contract language, and help evolve best and workable practices around the
> protection of personal and confidential information by (a) contract
> language that is consistent with national policy, and (b) showing some
> leadership in what would be good and workable policy here. ICANN is neither
> a King nor a Church bestowing favors on registries and registrars. It is a
> business entering into contractual obligations with its direct customers.
>
> #3: [*Typo*] I don’t know if the typo is in the Blacknight quote or not,
> but 5.3 should read …., then [not than] ALL registrars based in Germany…”
>
> 5.3 Response. The European Commission in its comments wrote, and we
> strongly agree: “the same exception should apply to others in the same
> jurisdiction who can demonstrate that they are in the same situation.”
> Further, Blacknight wrote and we support: “if ANY registrar in Germany, for
> example, is granted a waiver based on German law, *then* ALL registrars
> based in Germany should receive the same treatment.”  Once a national data
> protection or privacy law is interpreted as requiring and exemption or
> modification, it should be available to all Registries/Registrars in that
> country.
>
> Sam L.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> [log in to unmask]
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>