[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN privacy policy

[William Drake]

If whoever is handling the sysadmin in this case can individually approve non-members to join the list without adding them to the member data base that’s normally associated with our lists (and is used for voting in our elections etc) sure, whatever.  But again, then it’s not an NCUC Interest Group and on our website as such.

Bill

On Mar 29, 2014, at 6:06 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:

> As Joly pointed out, can we not just leave it where it is and invite the others to join, now the list is going?
> cheers Stephanie
> On Mar 29, 2014, at 5:28 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>> 
>> Ok, if the NCUC members who’ve said they want to work on this prefer to carry NPOC and do it as NCSG instead, then NCUC obviously cannot establish it as a NCUC Interest Group with a mailing list and position on our website.  NCSG doesn’t have an independent website but does have space on the Confluence platform, so you could move it there and wiki away.
>> 
>> Best
>> 
>> Bill
>> 
>> On Mar 29, 2014, at 7:29 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>>>>