[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN privacy policy

[Avri Doria]

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
>
>