[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning

Stephanie Perrin stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 15 13:55:50 EET 2017


Ok so Maryam got back to me.  THey forgot it.  (how Convenient).  So do 
we have a preferred timeslot?  I will ask Peter....

Steph


On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Stephanie,
>
> I think what Farzaneh wanted to highlight is that NCSG made a meeting 
> request for NCSG-DPA session but you are saying that DPA will go to 
> RDS session instead?
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin 
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca 
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
>     Wednesday is still our day alone to use as we see fit. Chuck is
>     trying to get Mr Cannatucci to attend our RDS meeting on
>     Wednesday., I will forward that thread to you as well.  All the
>     other sessions are monday
>
>
>     On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>     Hi Stephanie,
>>
>>     We both asked Maryam to follow up on NCSG session with the UN
>>     special rapp. I think would be helpful that Tapani also follows
>>     up since it's an NCSG request and we still don't see it on the
>>     schedule. Did I interpret it wrong that you said Chuck was
>>     planning to turn that into a GNSO meeting. Is the
>>     wednesday session only NCSG meeting wtih the UN rapp?
>>
>>     Farzaneh
>>
>>     On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>     <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>     <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>
>>         What happened is this:
>>
>>           * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done
>>           * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a
>>             lapsed HIT with this panel
>>           * Invitations went out for the opening day of the
>>             conference (they had to, these are busy guys)
>>           * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels
>>             (Victoria sheckler their person on this)
>>           * Side meetings have apparently been arranged
>>           * only guy available for our meeting on Wednesday is UN
>>             Special Rapporteur for privacy (grateful for this, this
>>             is a big deal and I am trying to get his latest book read
>>             prior to the event
>>
>>         Last version I saw of the schedule we did not have a session.
>>         You were checking on that.  Chuck Gomes was asking for time
>>         for the PDP on RDS but Monday is only day, he is trying for 8
>>         am breakfast meeting.
>>
>>         cheers Steph
>>
>>
>>
>>         On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>         Hi Stephanie,
>>>
>>>         Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross-
>>>         Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners?
>>>
>>>         If so, didn't we also submit a session request ( NCSG
>>>         request)? Did that turn into the above session? Where did
>>>         this session come from and where is NCSG session?
>>>
>>>
>>>         Farzaneh
>>>
>>>         On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin
>>>         <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>         <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             I am biting my tongue on this.  As some of you heard,  I
>>>             raised this with Goran.  I am tempted to just slide it
>>>             along to him.  With of course a mention of how the GAC
>>>             and ICANN staff sat on this from Hyderabad until mid
>>>             January.
>>>
>>>             Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I.
>>>
>>>             Steph
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>>             Subject: 	Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
>>>             Date: 	Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500
>>>             From: 	Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>             <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
>>>             To: 	KIMPIAN Peter <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
>>>             <mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
>>>             CC: 	Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com>
>>>             <mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com>, James M. Bladel
>>>             <jbladel at godaddy.com> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>,
>>>             kathy at kathykleiman.com <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>             <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
>>>             <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>,
>>>             donna.austin at neustar.biz
>>>             <mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz>
>>>             <donna.austin at neustar.biz>
>>>             <mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz>,
>>>             heather.forrest at acu.edu.au
>>>             <mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>
>>>             <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>
>>>             <mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>, Stephanie Perrin
>>>             <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
>>>             <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KWASNY
>>>             Sophie <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>
>>>             <mailto:Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>, Wilson, Christopher
>>>             <cwilson at 21cf.com> <mailto:cwilson at 21cf.com>, Tony
>>>             Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
>>>             <mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>             All,
>>>
>>>             /First, apologies for the length of this message and a
>>>             tone that is more strident than I intend it to be. 
>>>             Another pass through this email could smooth the rough
>>>             edges, but it is 2:45 am in Reykjavik and I have a 7:15
>>>             breakfast meeting, so my capacity is exhausted (and so
>>>             am I). Please read this with a friendly, collegial tone
>>>             in mind and indulge me  where I have failed to have the
>>>             tone of the text match my desire to be a good working
>>>             partner (and to "disagree without being disagreeable")
>>>             even where our perspectives may differ.  (As partial
>>>             explanation, my sport of choice in my youth was rugby
>>>             ("a ruffian's game played by gentlemen"), while fencing
>>>             probably would have been more apropos....)/
>>>
>>>             I am quite concerned with where we are in this
>>>             discussion.  There are either some substantial
>>>             misunderstandings about what this session, as a "High
>>>             Interest Topic", is supposed to be -- or there is an
>>>             apparent intent to exclude perspectives that will keep
>>>             this from being a celebration of data protection
>>>             principles.  I hope it's the former, but even that is
>>>             unfortunate.
>>>
>>>             Perhaps the root of the problem is combining the
>>>             original idea for a CoE-organized presentation with the
>>>             High Interest Topic (HIT) concept -- or perhaps that
>>>             just highlighted the inherent problem with the session. 
>>>             HIT doesn't just refer to a level of interest -- it's
>>>             supposed to be a community-generated proposal that is
>>>             then planned and presented with multistakeholder
>>>             participation (and _not_ merely by the proposing
>>>             organization).  One of the problems we had with the last
>>>             round of HITs was a proposal for a HIT session to be
>>>             planned and presented by a single part of the community,
>>>             largely consisting of a presentation by one of its
>>>             members and only minor roles for any sector not
>>>             sympathetic to the views of this member and community
>>>             group. This was inconsistent with the idea that the
>>>             proposing organization does not control the content of a
>>>             HIT session.  Fortunately, the original planners agreed
>>>             to to expand to a more diverse planning team, with the
>>>             result being a more diverse panel and a very lively and
>>>             well-received session.  When community leaders got on
>>>             the phone to consider this round of HITs, we wanted to
>>>             avoid a replay of this situation (although it ended well
>>>             enough).
>>>
>>>             When this data protection session was brought to the
>>>             community leaders group as a late suggestion for one of
>>>             the HIT slots, I was concerned we might be heading for a
>>>             replay, so the IPC specified that one of our members
>>>             (Vicky) should be added to the planning group (knowing
>>>             that at least one other constituency shared very similar
>>>             concerns). Unlike the last time, where we were able to
>>>             get a hand on the tiller and help turn the ship, I've
>>>             found our attempts to be largely rebuffed.  This has
>>>             been increasingly frustrating.
>>>
>>>             I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements
>>>             on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond:
>>>
>>>             Vicky wrote:
>>>             I don’t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which
>>>             panelist will represent public safety / transparency /
>>>             enforcement concerns.
>>>
>>>>>>             ​Peter responded:
>>>             Uuhhh, if you are in US it is quite early for you…in my
>>>             sense usually the governments are responsible and
>>>             accountable for the issues you mentioned, therefore it
>>>             seemed to me logical that those issues will be taken
>>>             care by a representative of the GAC. Besides that, the
>>>             PSWG is a sub-group of the GAC which is deliberately
>>>             discussing those issues you mentioned…
>>>
>>>             ​Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question​ and
>>>             perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that
>>>             it is a multistakeholder organization and /not/ a
>>>             multilateral organization. Governments are not the only
>>>             ones concerned with investigation and enforcement --
>>>             there are also significant parts of the private sector
>>>             deeply engaged in investigation and enforcement (and not
>>>             to put too fine a point on it, but IPC (my group and
>>>             Vicky's group) represents one of those parts of the
>>>             private sector).  As such, at least one voice from these
>>>             parts of the private sector should be present on the
>>>             panel. Even within governments, there are parts that
>>>             deal with public safety and enforcement. The idea that a
>>>             representative of the GAC will provide this perspective
>>>             seems mistaken.  As fine a chair as the GAC chair is, I
>>>             don't believe this is his perspective, and the
>>>             suggestion this would be within his brief seemed based
>>>             more on protocol than practicality. As revealed in this
>>>             thread, Ms. Bauer-Bulst is the co-chair of the PSWG, so
>>>             would be more on point for this perspective (though
>>>             apparently she is not sufficiently august to appear on
>>>             the panel, even if she is a Deputy Head of Unit, and not
>>>             merely a Team Leader as was stated earlier in this
>>>             exchange).
>>>
>>>             ​​Peter replied to James Bladel in red below:
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>                 Thanks, Peter.  Looks like I did miss this at some
>>>                 point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion.
>>>
>>>                 Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts:
>>>
>>>                 * I'm not sure what "sponsored" by the GNSO means in
>>>                 this context. Maybe we could say something like
>>>                 "convened" or "supported" jointly by the GNSO &
>>>                 GAC?àthis expression was used by ICANN staff but I
>>>                 can only agree that those you suggested are much better.
>>>
>>>
>>>             ​Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated
>>>             on the panel representing multiple perspectives.​
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>                 * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an
>>>                 absolute minimum.àI agree. 3+3 should be the maximum
>>>                 (!).  If we strive to represent all seven GNSO
>>>                 SG/Cs, plus GAC, plus COE/DPAs, then this session
>>>                 runs the risk of becoming "Death by PowerPoint" and
>>>                 dosn't leave much time for Q&A.  To that end, I will
>>>                 let Graeme know that we are looking for a RrSG
>>>                 panelist, but would encourage them to reach out to
>>>                 Jim Galvin and see if he is comfortable representing
>>>                 industry generally. Or if we need another CPH person
>>>                 that can wear both "hats."ànot necessarily as Jim
>>>                 could represent it quite well, I am sure. (Being
>>>                 said that we would have preferred more focus on the
>>>                 industry itself and to the different players as they
>>>                 are the first level data controllers. All NCPH and
>>>                 GAC related groups are secondary only) But if the
>>>                 internal dynamic of GNSO is as such, be it, but in
>>>                 this case we suggest Becky Burr to be on the panel
>>>                 (and not being moderator).
>>>
>>>
>>>             Greg: ​ICANN and the GNSO are not merely about "the
>>>             industry." If you wanted an industry facing program or a
>>>             dialogue only with "the industry", the appropriate place
>>>             for that would be the GDD (Global Domains Division)
>>>             Summit.​  As the President of an "NCPH related group" I
>>>             can assure you that our concerns about data protection
>>>             and privacy are not "secondary" -- at least not to us
>>>             and our stakeholder community.  This further shows the
>>>             problem of "perspectives" as this panel is being planned.
>>>
>>>                 * Similarly, I think the NCPH should strive for ~2
>>>                 panelists. Again, I apologize if the discussions
>>>                 were already headed in this direction, as I have
>>>                 lost track of the names proposed in this thread.àI
>>>                 really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH
>>>                 should also has to have 1 only because of the
>>>                 arguments expressed above.
>>>
>>>             ​Greg: Peter, you may not know it (or perhaps you may)
>>>             but the NCPH is an umbrella over two parts of the GNSO
>>>             -- the Commercial Stakeholder Group and the
>>>             Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group.  There is no valid way
>>>             that a single panelist could provide the sharply
>>>             different perspectives of these two stakeholder groups. 
>>>             Even having a single panelist representative the
>>>             different perspectives of IP stakeholders, ISPs and
>>>             Connectivity Providers, and ​the business user community
>>>             is a stretch (which hopefully would be mitigated by
>>>             Q&A).  I would say that if only panelist came from the
>>>             NCPH, they should come from the CSG, as we would offer a
>>>             more distinguishable perspective, but frankly that would
>>>             be unfair to the Non-Commercial side of the house (which
>>>             itself includes a range of viewpoints), and I don't want
>>>             to be unfair to the NCSG and its constituencies either.
>>>
>>>                 àTherefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr,
>>>                 Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin
>>>
>>>
>>>             Greg: ​This neatly includes the contracted parties
>>>             (Registries and Registrars) and excluded the commercial
>>>             private sector represented in the NCPH.  This is not
>>>             acceptable.  (Which is why James, as Chair of the GNSO,
>>>             wisely suggested 2 panelists from the NCPH.)​
>>>
>>>             This description was provided by Peter:
>>>
>>>                 A community-wide event will be organised on 13 March
>>>                 2017 under the form of a High Interest Topic
>>>                 “sponsored” by the Generic Names Supporting
>>>                 Organization (GNSO) Council (and possibly by the
>>>                 Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) as well) which
>>>                 will enable the participation of interested ICANN
>>>                 communities.
>>>
>>>
>>>             Greg: ​We are an interested ICANN community and we have
>>>             been seeking to participate and/or to have participation
>>>             from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the
>>>             roster.  So far with no success.
>>>>>>
>>>                 The session could be jointly opened by the CEO of
>>>                 ICANN Board and the Director of Information Society
>>>                 and Action against Crime of the Council of Europe.
>>>                 During the session the United Nations’ Special
>>>                 Rapporteur on the right to privacy, the co-Chair of
>>>                 the Article 29 Working Group and the European Data
>>>                 Protection Supervisor together with high level
>>>                 representatives of registries’ group, the
>>>                 registrars’ group and the GAC will address in 10
>>>                 minutes each the above mentioned topics. During the
>>>                 session the involvement of the audience will be
>>>                 guaranteed by an open mike slot.
>>>
>>>                 I think during the last days, weeks we have reached
>>>                 an agreement on Ms Becky Burr moderating the panel
>>>                 and having James Galvin as representative for
>>>                 registries’ group (both seemed to agree on that). If
>>>                 we follow this logic we would need one
>>>                 representative from the GAC and one from registrars’
>>>                 group. (We previously
>>>
>>>                 ​P​
>>>                 suggested that the chair of these communities could
>>>                 be invited to speak under these two slots).
>>>
>>>
>>>             ​Greg: Not to sound like a broken record, but this
>>>             emphasis on including the contracted parties to the
>>>             exclusion of the non-contracted parties really runs
>>>             counter to multistakeholder sensibilities.
>>>
>>>             If the emphasis is on "high level representatives" and
>>>             "chairs" I would be willing to join the panel as the
>>>             chair of my community, though we may have better
>>>             candidates on substance (including Vicky, who is our
>>>             vice chair).​
>>>
>>>             In response to my email asking what her goals for the
>>>             panel were (and which stated much of what I've restated
>>>             above), ​Stephanie Perrin wrote: Peter and the COE are
>>>             organizing this.  I will let them explain the goals.  In
>>>             my personal view....data protection commissioners are
>>>             not present at ICANN.  The dialogue has been anything
>>>             but robust, although they have been attempting to engage
>>>             for many many years.
>>>
>>>             Vicky responded:
>>>
>>>                 It is clear we need additional perspectives to make
>>>                 this a robust panel. I think james is a good
>>>                 addition and  we also need someone with Cathrin's
>>>                 perspective,
>>>
>>>
>>>                 Greg: We still need that perspective.
>>>
>>>             ​Peter responded with COE's goals:
>>>
>>>             The panellists will be invited to exchange views on the
>>>             privacy and data protection implications of processing
>>>             of WHOIS data, third party access to personal data and
>>>             the issue of accountability for the processing of
>>>             personal data. The expected outcome of the event is a
>>>             better mutual understanding of the underlying questions
>>>             related to the protection of privacy and personal data
>>>             and the strengthening of an open and inclusive dialogue
>>>             on these issues, to be carried on anytime deemed necessary.​
>>>
>>>             Greg: We are among those "third parties" and we are
>>>             seeking to be included in an open and inclusive
>>>             dialogue, and to include the perspective of government
>>>             as among those "third parties" as well.  I'm not sure
>>>             why this has become quite so difficult.​
>>>
>>>             ​Prior to that Peter wrote: ​
>>>
>>>             I really don’t want to hurt anybody personally, I find
>>>             this exchange of mails rather odd [discussion of the
>>>             importance of EDPS, correction of Ms. Bauer-Bulst's
>>>             characterization of the EDPS as a "body that advises,"
>>>              and the relative ranks of various potential panelists
>>>             removed for space]
>>>
>>>             Greg: I'm not sure why you find this exchange of emails
>>>             "rather odd", but perhaps it traces back to the mismatch
>>>             between a community-planned HIT and a panel planned by
>>>             the CoE.  These emails are our attempts at community
>>>             planning -- again an essentially multistakeholder effort.
>>>
>>>             ​In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would
>>>             you propose?" (responding to my view that we n​eeded a
>>>             panel that represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote:
>>>
>>>             I think we all are on the same page...therefore I
>>>             suggest to include Becky Burr to this panel. She was
>>>             recommended by other constituencies as well so if you
>>>             agree we can move along.
>>>
>>>             Greg: I respect Becky immensely and already said she was
>>>             a great choice on many counts.  Yet, the response above
>>>             misses my point -- that we need perspectives beyond data
>>>             protection officials and "the industry."
>>>
>>>             ​Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just
>>>             a couple more things.  One was Peter's suggestion that
>>>             /The current state of preparation would imply the
>>>             following meetings/-/a session with the GAC plenary,/-/a
>>>             working lunch with the Board,/-/community wide afternoon
>>>             session possibly in the format of an “High Interest
>>>             Topic”./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting
>>>             with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council /-/bilateral
>>>             meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/
>>>             /
>>>             /
>>>             ​Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the
>>>             CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/​ community
>>>             groups) should be considered, to say the least.  We
>>>             would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite).
>>>
>>>             Peter wrote, in response to Vicky:
>>>             Separately, please note I anticipate having some
>>>             additional suggestions for consideration for this panel
>>>             by the end of next week.àPlease do so, but you have to
>>>             understand that it is rather strange that 1 month away
>>>             of the event we don’t know who the speakers would be. We
>>>             have also made suggestions which we believe enjoy the
>>>             support of many in GNSO (and beyond) fellows and follows
>>>             the idea of multi-stakeholderism and cover the main
>>>             issues Victoria suggested us to take into account
>>>             including third party access to data. I would recommend
>>>             to consider those and come back to us as quickly as you can…
>>>
>>>             Greg: Given that this session was only suggested as a
>>>             High Interest Topic on January 23, it's not so strange
>>>             that we have not finalized the speakers list. We began
>>>             discussing the other HIT sessions quite a bit earlier.
>>>             That said, the sooner we can bring the necessary people
>>>             with the necessary perspectives and the necessary
>>>             protocol-sensitive rank (apologies for our insensitivity
>>>             to protocol concerns; I guess Americans don't do well
>>>             with rank, and one of the refreshing aspects of the
>>>             ICANN milieu is that rank is generally absent from our
>>>             considerations).
>>>
>>>             I will once again emphasize that GNSO is itself a
>>>             multistakeholder organization so having "the support of
>>>             many in GNSO" does not mean that your suggestions have
>>>             the support of our part of the GNSO (hence, our attempts
>>>             since late last month).  Leaving out the commercial
>>>             sector does not quite follow the idea of
>>>             multistakeholderism....
>>>
>>>             I would love nothing more for us to resolve this to our
>>>             collective and individual satisfaction and move on.  I
>>>             look forward to doing so.
>>>
>>>             Best Regards,
>>>
>>>             Greg Shatan
>>>             President
>>>             Intellectual Property Constituency
>>>
>>>
>>>             _______________________________________________
>>>             NCSG-PC mailing list
>>>             NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>             https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>>             <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     NCSG-PC mailing list
>     NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
>     https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>     <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170215/3fdb9928/attachment.htm>


More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list