[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN privacy policy

[Stephanie Perrin]

I absolutely like the combined NCSG model, and the work is flowing from a combined NCSG presentation to the Board, so we must honour that.  My nervousness about attempting to draft or reach consensus in a large group, is no doubt coloured by my incredulity at the never-ending stream of talk-no-action coming from the 1-net and IGF discussion lists.  Lets give it a go, I will send the message we started with, about drafting the gap analysis, to the NCSG privacy list (assuming I am indeed on it and that it won’t take a week to rectify if I am not on it) and take it from there.  Meantime my principal focus is to get the first draft done. 
Thanks!
Stephanie
PS I assume privacy at ipjustice.org may have folks who don’t regularly participate at ICANN on it?
On Mar 28, 2014, at 5:30 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I am confused.
> 
> <privacy at ipjustice.org> is a relatively small list.  Of course it looks like it could get bigger if everyone wants to join, but I don't see that as a problem as long as it does not get as big as NCUc or the NCSG
> 
> I think that doing the work in a smaller open and archived group that focuses on just one subject is a good idea.  I also think that we don't need separate privacy etc list for bot NCUC and NCSG.  But I am one of the people that is less than excited about the competing constituency model and prefer the unified NCSG model.
> 
> avri
> 
> 
> 
> On 28-Mar-14 15:35, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>> I understand why you want to do this.  This is a working group, to
>> draft something.  I hear rumours there are 350 people on the NCSG
>> discussion list.  I have worked all year trying to get basic, basic
>> concepts of data protection law understood.  I am not sure drafting
>> this thing in such a big group is efficient.  i have no objections
>> sending the small group's concensus draft from the working group to
>> the larger list, but I am mindful of Bill's admonition to keep the
>> traffic low.  if we start discussing definitions, frameworks,
>> jurisdiction, related constitutional protections (remembering there
>> are at least 50 jurisdictions out there with data protection law,) we
>> will never get this thing done. It is supposed to be a short gap
>> analysis of their privacy policy, that is all, not a draft of a new
>> privacy policy.  If that were what we are doing, then maybe we would
>> have to do it in the bigger group. Just saying.  EPIC and PI found it
>> a total nightmare in recent years trying to update the Privacy and
>> Human RIghts Law Handbook, it is just too big now (see link
>> http://www.worldlii.org/int/journals/EPICPrivHR/2006/PHR2006-Defining.html)
>> I will abide by the decision of this group, but I will also feed my
>> draft in to the EWG if we bog down and cannot reach agreement.  we
>> have a major admission that they need advice, STeve is happy to get
>> it, we gotta move. Cheers SP PS Here is the link to the framework I
>> intend to reference (mostly because it is dated 2002 and I want to
>> underscore just how late ICANN is in recognizing its
>> responsibilities), referring of course to recent updates in EU law,
>> proposed regulation, and the guidance on binding corporate rules from
>> the Art 29 group.
>> http://danskprivacynet.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/ipse_finalreport1.pdf.
>> If anyone can think of a decent US document to cite, I am all ears,
>> but I am not aware of one. ________________________________________
>> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org
>> <ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org> on behalf of Avri Doria
>> <avri at acm.org> Sent: March 27, 2014 10:11 PM Cc:
>> ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN privacy
>> policy
>> 
>> On 27-Mar-14 13:13, Amr Elsadr wrote:
>>> I think it is important to decide early on wether we are going to
>>> have separate discussions regarding ICANN’s privacy and data
>>> protection policies within their own corporate practices and
>>> within the policies developed through the GNSO impacting
>>> obligations imposed on contracted parties, or not.
>> 
>> I suggest we stick to one NCSG wide discussion space for all of
>> this.
>> 
>> avri _______________________________________________ Ncuc-discuss
>> mailing list Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
>> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ncuc-discuss mailing list
> Ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> http://lists.ncuc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ncuc-discuss