Electing a WG chair (or co-chairs)
Hello everyone as a further follow up to our meeting earlier today, please consider nominating someone (including yourself if you are interested) to either chair or co-chair this Working Group. Because of the time line and the upcoming holidays, we suggest that nominations close at 23:59 UTC on Monday 9 December. Please send all nominations (including any self-nominations) to the list. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org * One World. One Internet. *
Colleagues, Back in 2001 I took a position at Engage with the responsibility of contributing to the W3C's Privacy Preferences Platform (P3P) work on privacy policy. We, the members of the P3P Specification Working Group, crafted a means for data collectors to announce to the data sources -- browser users -- their operational practices, consistent with the Data Protection Directive(s) of the European Union, the hybrid model of the OEDC member states (e.g., Japan, Canada), and the private contract model of the United States and several other common law cultures. It was not child's play to create a viable synthesis of these three legal regimes, all related to privacy and proxy. As you all know very well, California State and/or Federal District Court for Southern California is not the only controlling jurisdiction we need to be informed by, nor is a private contract with a California domiciled 501(c)(3) the complete statement of rights at issue -- as registrants, registrars and registries, and more recent third parties involved in rights determination, are domiciled in other jurisdictions. I prefer that the leadership of this working group include individuals who's first legal language is not the common law, and who have held positions of responsibility for data collection under the Directive(s) of the European Union. While there are volunteers from Germany, which has an outstanding data protection regime, and from elsewhere, until none are able to offer the time necessary to function as a (co-)chair, I prefer that the role and responsibility go to one (or more) competent individuals not employed by in Reston. We can be sure that the interests of the data collecting businesses situated in whole or in part in Reston will be well represented, along with the interests of intellectual property managers situated in the nearby District of Columbia. We can avoid, if we choose, making these interests central and other interests peripheral. In the course of its existence ICANN has harmed itself several times. It privileged English (ASCII) over other Latin Script languages which use diacriticals (e.g., French, German, ..), and over languages that use other scripts (e.g., Chinese in Han Script), and allowed a vendor to determin its IDN technology and policy. This was the direct cause of CNNIC starting a name server constellation in 2001 (I know, I was personally involved). This situation was not materially improved until the Bruxelles meeting, in the MOA space (ccTLDs), and this year, in the Contract space (gTLDs). It privileged common law contractual obligations over national law obligations (as most registrars located outside of the US are well aware), creating a conflict of rule (ICANN) and law (states) for which very little benefit can be rationally claimed. It is only recently that ICANN has made some of its contracts jurisdictionally aware, affecting some registrant data access rights and responsibilities. We are not, as a community, or as a collection of self-interested actors, where we were in 2012. We, and far more than we few ICANN insiders, are now Snowden-Informed, and any work in the area of privacy and proxies done today, if it is to last longer than today, must be different from what was "commercially acceptable" or "best current practice" before we all became Snowden-Informed. I don't support Steve's proposal. Don may be a good choice, but I don't support Steve's selection of a chair, excluding all others, who may be as good choices. Eric
Hi Eric and all, first of all, I want to say that this is my very first involvement with an ICANN working group, so I maybe wrong in my understanding. But my understanding is that the output of our contribution is based on consensus. That means also (once more according to my understanding) that (co)-chair, except some administrative duties, cannot change in their own direction the decision made from the whole group. Please, let me know if I am wrong. Best regards Le 7 déc. 2013 à 20:34, ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net a écrit :
Colleagues,
Back in 2001 I took a position at Engage with the responsibility of contributing to the W3C's Privacy Preferences Platform (P3P) work on privacy policy. We, the members of the P3P Specification Working Group, crafted a means for data collectors to announce to the data sources -- browser users -- their operational practices, consistent with the Data Protection Directive(s) of the European Union, the hybrid model of the OEDC member states (e.g., Japan, Canada), and the private contract model of the United States and several other common law cultures. It was not child's play to create a viable synthesis of these three legal regimes, all related to privacy and proxy.
As you all know very well, California State and/or Federal District Court for Southern California is not the only controlling jurisdiction we need to be informed by, nor is a private contract with a California domiciled 501(c)(3) the complete statement of rights at issue -- as registrants, registrars and registries, and more recent third parties involved in rights determination, are domiciled in other jurisdictions.
I prefer that the leadership of this working group include individuals who's first legal language is not the common law, and who have held positions of responsibility for data collection under the Directive(s) of the European Union.
While there are volunteers from Germany, which has an outstanding data protection regime, and from elsewhere, until none are able to offer the time necessary to function as a (co-)chair, I prefer that the role and responsibility go to one (or more) competent individuals not employed by in Reston. We can be sure that the interests of the data collecting businesses situated in whole or in part in Reston will be well represented, along with the interests of intellectual property managers situated in the nearby District of Columbia. We can avoid, if we choose, making these interests central and other interests peripheral.
In the course of its existence ICANN has harmed itself several times.
It privileged English (ASCII) over other Latin Script languages which use diacriticals (e.g., French, German, ..), and over languages that use other scripts (e.g., Chinese in Han Script), and allowed a vendor to determin its IDN technology and policy. This was the direct cause of CNNIC starting a name server constellation in 2001 (I know, I was personally involved). This situation was not materially improved until the Bruxelles meeting, in the MOA space (ccTLDs), and this year, in the Contract space (gTLDs).
It privileged common law contractual obligations over national law obligations (as most registrars located outside of the US are well aware), creating a conflict of rule (ICANN) and law (states) for which very little benefit can be rationally claimed. It is only recently that ICANN has made some of its contracts jurisdictionally aware, affecting some registrant data access rights and responsibilities.
We are not, as a community, or as a collection of self-interested actors, where we were in 2012. We, and far more than we few ICANN insiders, are now Snowden-Informed, and any work in the area of privacy and proxies done today, if it is to last longer than today, must be different from what was "commercially acceptable" or "best current practice" before we all became Snowden-Informed.
I don't support Steve's proposal. Don may be a good choice, but I don't support Steve's selection of a chair, excluding all others, who may be as good choices.
Eric _______________________________________________ Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg mailing list Gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-ppsai-pdp-wg
Comments: In-reply-to Nacer Adamou Saidou <adamou.nacer@gmail.com> message dated "Sun, 08 Dec 2013 18:56:07 +0300." -------- Nacer,
I want to say that this is my very first involvement with an ICANN working group, so I maybe wrong in my understanding.
Welcome to ...
But my understanding is that the output of our contribution is based on consensus. That means also (once more according to my understanding) that (co)-chair, except some administrative duties, cannot change in their own direction the decision made from the whole group. Please, let me know if I am wrong.
It depends. In theory this working group will conduct itself according to the process(es) established by the GNSO Council, and over the years we (various contributors) have made efforts to institutionalize several latent problem areas like actual, or apparent conflicts of interest and what we've thought were credible solutions to these specific problems. However, we have a history, one that Steve mentioned in his candid note, there are individuals with interests and these have been quite large in our past and remain. In a two sentence summary, we formed "consitutencies" to constitute the original DNSO (later renamed the GNSO) in 2000, and proceeded to be deadlocked over several issues (privacy being one), and in an attempt to resolve the policy deadlock reformed the GNSO into two "houses", contracted parties and non-contracted parties, and also made changes related process and its control to the GNSO's PDP process(es) and the GNSO's operations. As Steve pointed out, even with all this we, the "volunteers" have our histories of, and our present, alignments. Where Steve and I differ is in our pessimisms -- whether we can work out a means of self-interest management through the usual plurality of co-chair means -- which I hope we can, or must find a single disinterested person -- Steve's solution. Another think to keep in mind as this is your first invovement with an ICANN working group is that not all of what is called "ICANN" operates under the process(es) of the GNSO, and "consensus" can take on very different meanings in other contexts. Eric
Hello! I support Steve´s proposal. On Tue, 3 Dec 2013 17:18:08 -0800 Mary Wong <mary.wong@icann.org> wrote:
Hello everyone as a further follow up to our meeting earlier today, please consider nominating someone (including yourself if you are interested) to either chair or co-chair this Working Group. Because of the time line and the upcoming holidays, we suggest that nominations close at 23:59 UTC on Monday 9 December. Please send all nominations (including any self-nominations) to the list.
Thanks and cheers Mary
Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: +1 603 574 4892 Email: mary.wong@icann.org
* One World. One Internet. *
Best Regards, -- Tatiana Khramtsova Regional Network Information Center (RU-CENTER) Tel.: +7 495 994-4601 +7 495 737-0601 Fax: +7 495 737-0602 http://www.nic.ru
participants (4)
-
ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net -
Khramtsova Tatiana -
Mary Wong -
Nacer Adamou Saidou