So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long. Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems. I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly. Cheers, Rod
I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated version of the EWG report, which would of course discuss where I as the lone privacy advocate was overruled....Rod will no doubt back me up when I say that I nagged everyone to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN stakeholders (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out. However, I think we should add to our document library the recent guidance document produced by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in the context of GDPR. It is still a terrific solution to this mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798 cheers Stephanie On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Stephanie, I would be an eager reader of your annotated version of the EWG report. Let me ask that you first read my note about the roles of the contacts and see if that affects your thinking. Thanks, Steve On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated version of the EWG report, which would of course discuss where I as the lone privacy advocate was overruled....Rod will no doubt back me up when I say that I nagged everyone to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN stakeholders (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out. However, I think we should add to our document library the recent guidance document produced by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in the context of GDPR. It is still a terrific solution to this mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/ just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798
cheers Stephanie
On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I did indeed, as well as Rob's reply....I need to understand all these matters better, but my urge would be of course to minimize the data fields. If the MPAA or Facebook have need of numerous contact fields, perhaps an argument could be made to allow them to do that, but they should not be mandatory. On 2018-02-15 17:03, Steve Crocker wrote:
Stephanie,
I would be an eager reader of your annotated version of the EWG report. Let me ask that you first read my note about the roles of the contacts and see if that affects your thinking.
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated version of the EWG report, which would of course discuss where I as the lone privacy advocate was overruled....Rod will no doubt back me up when I say that I nagged everyone to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN stakeholders (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out. However, I think we should add to our document library the recent guidance document produced by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in the context of GDPR. It is still a terrific solution to this mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798 <http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798>
cheers Stephanie
On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
Stephanie, I think we're coming at the same issue but from slightly different points of view. If I understand your position, you want to minimize the amount of information that's collected, kept and/or made available to others. My position is I want a clear understanding of what those roles mean and hence what authority and responsibility is associated with those roles. From this I expect it will be possible to have a sensible dialog about who may have access to that information and what they're allowed to do with it. Thanks, Steve On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
I did indeed, as well as Rob's reply....I need to understand all these matters better, but my urge would be of course to minimize the data fields. If the MPAA or Facebook have need of numerous contact fields, perhaps an argument could be made to allow them to do that, but they should not be mandatory. On 2018-02-15 17:03, Steve Crocker wrote:
Stephanie,
I would be an eager reader of your annotated version of the EWG report. Let me ask that you first read my note about the roles of the contacts and see if that affects your thinking.
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail. utoronto.ca> wrote:
I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated version of the EWG report, which would of course discuss where I as the lone privacy advocate was overruled....Rod will no doubt back me up when I say that I nagged everyone to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN stakeholders (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out. However, I think we should add to our document library the recent guidance document produced by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in the context of GDPR. It is still a terrific solution to this mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/ just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798
cheers Stephanie
On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing listgnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
I agree Steve, and am so glad that you have joined this discussion....maybe you can help us get past the sticking points that are driving us nuts. As for the annotated EWG report....I guess I had better get at it! Maybe I can serialize it like Dickens did.... cheers Stephanie On 2018-02-15 17:25, Steve Crocker wrote:
Stephanie,
I think we're coming at the same issue but from slightly different points of view. If I understand your position, you want to minimize the amount of information that's collected, kept and/or made available to others. My position is I want a clear understanding of what those roles mean and hence what authority and responsibility is associated with those roles. From this I expect it will be possible to have a sensible dialog about who may have access to that information and what they're allowed to do with it.
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 5:16 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
I did indeed, as well as Rob's reply....I need to understand all these matters better, but my urge would be of course to minimize the data fields. If the MPAA or Facebook have need of numerous contact fields, perhaps an argument could be made to allow them to do that, but they should not be mandatory.
On 2018-02-15 17:03, Steve Crocker wrote:
Stephanie,
I would be an eager reader of your annotated version of the EWG report. Let me ask that you first read my note about the roles of the contacts and see if that affects your thinking.
Thanks,
Steve
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca <mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
I have been threatening for years to publish my annotated version of the EWG report, which would of course discuss where I as the lone privacy advocate was overruled....Rod will no doubt back me up when I say that I nagged everyone to develop binding corporate rules for ICANN stakeholders (BCRs) but that idea was tossed out. However, I think we should add to our document library the recent guidance document produced by the Article 29 Working Party on BCRs in the context of GDPR. It is still a terrific solution to this mess....ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798 <http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/just/document.cfm?doc_id=48798>
cheers Stephanie
On 2018-02-15 16:45, Rod Rasmussen wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org <mailto:gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg>
I absolutely agree with you Rod, it would be interesting to get insight on the EWG report. Let/s make that happen! On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com> wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
Am smiles up that the EWG report is coming back On Friday, February 16, 2018, Susan Kawaguchi <susankpolicy@gmail.com> wrote:
I absolutely agree with you Rod, it would be interesting to get insight on the EWG report. Let/s make that happen!
On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com> wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
-- Regards Nanghaka Daniel K. Executive Director - ILICIT Africa / Chair - FOSSFA / Community Lead - ISOC Uganda Chapter / Geo4Africa Lead / Organising Team - FOSS4G2018 Mobile +256 772 898298 (Uganda) Skype: daniel.nanghaka ----------------------------------------- *"Working for Africa" * -----------------------------------------
+1 What's remarkable is that the central idea of the EWG Report was input to this WG. I've decided it is less stress to just relax, do the polls and wait for the catch up. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 4:45 PM, Rod Rasmussen <rod@rodrasmussen.com> wrote:
So I’d gotten out of the habit of occasionally interjecting into one of the long debate threads we have here on this list with a handy reference to the relevant section of the EWG report that covers that topic-of-the-day, usually quite thoroughly and clearly. Got sorta busy on SSAC-y stuff as you may have heard. I’ll try to fit more of those in going forward since it may get more of you who haven’t had a chance to finish the EWG report to read more of that document - I know its long.
Anyways, as I was doing that today to reinforce the point Andrew was making so well, it occurred to me that we could short-circuit a whole lot of our debates/discussions on what is or isn’t workable under GDPR etc. simply by asking one of the EU DPA’s to evaluate the EWG Report itself and weigh in on whether or not the various principles and recommendations for models it contains would work. Then we could just work areas where it isn’t sufficient, adequate or in conflict and just go with it for solving all our other problems.
I know, just a fantasy, but we’re coming up on the four-year anniversary of that document and I see no end in sight for this WP which is so frustrating for me personally given that we have probably 90% or more of this stuff solved in a very handy document already. Maybe we should just use that as a de-facto baseline and hammer on the parts where there is still disagreement rather than re-doing all that work again and getting to basically the same place, just FAR more slowly.
Cheers,
Rod
_______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg
participants (6)
-
Carlton Samuels -
DANIEL NANGHAKA -
Rod Rasmussen -
Stephanie Perrin -
Steve Crocker -
Susan Kawaguchi