[NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN privacy policy

[Stephanie Perrin]

happy to have you aboard!  The shorter list now exists, not sure who to thank.
stephanie
On Mar 28, 2014, at 1:34 PM, Christopher Parsons <christopher at christopher-parsons.com> wrote:

> I'd be happy to help on this as appropriate. I have experience in analyzing, evaluating, and critiquing privacy policies of large multinationals with aims to improving their usefulness to end-users.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> -- 
> *************************************************
> Christopher Parsons
> Postdoctoral Fellow
> Citizen Lab, Munk School of Global Affairs
> http://www.christopher-parsons.com
> *************************************************
> 
> 
> On 28 March 2014 10:30, Balleste, Roy <rballeste at stu.edu> wrote:
> I agree with Avri.  Will this be a new list for members interested in the subject?  Or a list for members drafting policy positions on behalf of the membership?  In the past, it was worked well when NPOC and NCUC worked together in policy positions.
> 
> Roy Balleste
> Law Library Director &
> Professor of Law
> St. Thomas University Law Library
> 16401 NW 37th Avenue
> Miami Gardens, FL 33054
> 305-623-2341
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org [mailto:ncuc-discuss-bounces at lists.ncuc.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 5:30 AM
> To: ncuc-discuss at lists.ncuc.org
> Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN privacy policy
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20140329/f0ca8401/attachment-0002.html>