Thanks, Marie,
Michele (and others), how do you feel about this suggestion?
Could we please have all suggestions/opinions in before 23:59 UTC,
so the document can be frozen?
Julf
On 16-04-19 16:50, Marie Pattullo wrote:
Thanks to all the drafters for your work on this!
The BC proposes the following amendment to point 1(iv):
iv) Any technical solutions need to be designed so that they take into
consideration the policies they need to handle. While some may argue
that systems are “flexible”enough to allow for a broad variety of
policies, one such policy which is critical, and which should be a
policy output from Phase 2 of the EPDP, is that the system must
incorporate well-understood, current state-of-the-art “privacy by
design” principles for online systems. The Council trusts that it will
be fully informed of, and implicated where appropriate in, the scoping
and execution of any parallel technical effort to define such a policy.
that is not the same as “privacy by design” which is probably what is
called for. Due to the nature of ICANN’s PDP processes, it may be
premature to attempt to launch parallel work on this.
Thanks again,
Marie
-----Original Message-----
From: council <council-bounces@gnso.icann.org> On Behalf Of Johan Helsingius
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 6:51 PM
To: GNSO Council List <council@gnso.icann.org>
Subject: [council] GAC Communique response
The suggested GNSO Council response to the GAC Communique attached.
Google docs version at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WODNWffxy_dn6WRXV-_mJAwPhlh5V57T3L94BwQEtTE
Julf