Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] High-level notes and action items - EPDP Team F2F - 9-11 September
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.
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.
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 â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€� Original Message â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€�â€� 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.
Alan, Your response is, at best, a non sequitur. My original request stands. Thanks, Ayden ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Sunday, 15 September 2019 07:22, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
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.
participants (2)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Ayden Férdeline