I understand that you fear ICANN may be preparing questions which are "wrong" and if made public could harm ICANN and our work. I don't understand why you think that announcing them in this very public mailing list or in publicly broadcast meetings is better than quietly working with our partners to improve them first.

Or are you suggesting we go into in-camera session with everyone first signing non-disclosure agreements?

We may have to agree to disagree.

Alan

--

Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On September 14, 2019 6:06:00 PM EDT, "Ayden Férdeline" <icann@ferdeline.com> wrote:

I'm sorry, I disagree. I think this is very important, and asking the wrong questions or presenting information with the wrong framing to an external body could have implications for our work. I appreciate that not everyone may have an interest in reviewing these questions, and this does not need to be mandatory homework. But for those of us who are keen to review the questions, we should have the opportunity to do so. The potential for damage to ICANN's reputation here is high, and we should be working to avoid such an outcome.

-- Ayden

‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Sunday, 15 September 2019 00:01, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:

 My understanding was different. It was not that
 she was uncomfortable with the questions (or
 whatever is in the overall document) but that she
 wanted to first pass it by the EU people who were
 acting as advisors (ie partners in formulating
 the doc). There is not point in sharing what is
 there now if it may be completely changed - that would be a waste of our time.

 Alan

 At 14/09/2019 05:42 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:

 Thanks Alan, I think your recollection is
 correct, but I personally found that response
 from ICANN Org to be unsatisfactory.
 Before these questions are being shared with any
 third party, I think we as a chartered working
 group should be able to review them so that we
 have a fuller understanding of what discussions
 are taking place that could potentially impact our work.
 I think this is particularly important given
 Elena herself expressed discomfort with the way
 in which the questions were worded. If ICANN
 staff are not fully comfortable with the
 questions, I think we should be able to read
 through them ASAP and to offer speedy input on
 suggested improvements or revisions.
 I appreciate the questions are still a working
 document, and it's with that understanding that
 we would be offering suggested improvements -
 with a vision only to making sure we get
 information back that is actionable and useful for us as a working group.
 Best wishes, Ayden
 ������� Original Message �������
 On Saturday, 14 September 2019 22:14, Alan
 Greenberg alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca wrote:

 My recollection is that Elena said that she did
 not feel comfortable sharing the memo now, prior
 to consulting with the EU folks who are helping
 them, but would share it with us once that is
 done and prior to submitting to the EDPB.
 Alan
 At 12/09/2019 09:07 PM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:

Also, I appreciate that it was not agreed as an
action item, but is there any way in which we
might be able to keep an open dialogue with the
Strawberry Team and - importantly - to see their
questions they plan to submit to the European
Data Protection Board before they are submitted
to any external party? I think we can all
appreciate they would be in draft form - that's
why we would like to help get the wording (and
sentiment) correct, and to avoid reputational
damage to ICANN if the wrong questions are
asked. I realise this was requested already, and
there was pushback from the Strawberry Team, but
I think it's important and inconsistent with
ICANN's stated commitments to transparency that
we are all ignorant as to what is being asked
that has a high potential to impact our work.