<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<p>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.</p>
<p>Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. <br>
</p>
<p>Steph<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container"><br>
<br>
-------- Forwarded Message --------
<table class="moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0"
cellspacing="0">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:
</th>
<td>Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date: </th>
<td>Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From: </th>
<td>Greg Shatan <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To: </th>
<td>KIMPIAN Peter <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN@coe.int"><Peter.KIMPIAN@coe.int></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC: </th>
<td>Victoria Sheckler <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com"><vsheckler@riaa.com></a>, James M.
Bladel <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com"><jbladel@godaddy.com></a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com"><kathy@kathykleiman.com></a>, <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz">donna.austin@neustar.biz</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz"><donna.austin@neustar.biz></a>,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:heather.forrest@acu.edu.au">heather.forrest@acu.edu.au</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:heather.forrest@acu.edu.au"><heather.forrest@acu.edu.au></a>, Stephanie Perrin
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"><stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca></a>, KWASNY Sophie
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Sophie.KWASNY@coe.int"><Sophie.KWASNY@coe.int></a>, Wilson, Christopher
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:cwilson@21cf.com"><cwilson@21cf.com></a>, Tony Holmes
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com"><tonyarholmes@btinternet.com></a></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<br>
<br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><i>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></font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font face="verdana,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</span><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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 <u>not</u> 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).</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I'd like to respond to
some of the specific statements on this thread since I last
had an opportunity to respond:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Vicky
wrote: </div>
<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">I
don’t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which
panelist will represent public safety / transparency /
enforcement concerns.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="color:rgb(80,0,80)"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"
lang="EN-US"></span></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Peter
responded: </div>
<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">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…</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote"><span
style="font-family:calibri,sans-serif"><font
color="#000000">
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><span
style="font-size:11pt"></span>Greg: This misses the
point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a
fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a
multistakeholder organization and <i>not</i> 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).</div>
</font></span></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Peter replied
to James Bladel in red below:</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div>
<div
style="border-right:none;border-bottom:none;border-left:none;border-top:1pt
solid rgb(225,225,225);padding:3pt 0cm 0cm">
<p class="MsoNormal"> <br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672compose">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Thanks, Peter. Looks like
I did miss this at some point, so please
accept my apologies for the confusion.</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">Generally, I"m ok with
this, but a few thoughts:</p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* 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?<span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">
</span><span
style="font-family:wingdings;color:red">à</span><span
style="color:red"> this expression was used
by ICANN staff but I can only agree that
those you suggested are much better.<br>
</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg: From my
point of view, this support is predicated on the panel
representing multiple perspectives.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672compose">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672compose">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* I think we need to keep
the number panelists to an absolute minimum.<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">
</span><span
style="font-family:wingdings;color:red">à</span><span
style="color:red"> I agree. 3+3 should be
the maximum (!).</span> 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."<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span>
<span
style="font-family:wingdings;color:red">à</span><span
style="color:red"> not 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).</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672compose">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red">
</span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">* 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.<span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">
</span><span
style="font-family:wingdings;color:red">à</span><span
style="color:red"> I really think that if
CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has
to have 1 only because of the arguments
expressed above.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div>
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672compose">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-family:wingdings;color:red">à</span><span
style="color:red"> Therefore our
suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr,
Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.)</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This description
was provided by Peter:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672compose">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:red"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">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. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg: We are an
interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to
participate and/or to have participation from the
enforcement/cybercrime/infring<wbr>ement side of the
roster. So far with no success.</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">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.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)">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 </span></p>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">P</div>
suggested that the chair of these communities
could be invited to speak under these two
slots).</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font
color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font
color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><font
color="#000000">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).<br>
</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"> </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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: <span style="font-family:"lucida
grande",serif;font-size:13.5pt">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.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:"lucida
grande",serif;font-size:13.5pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica,
sans-serif">Vicky responded:</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default">
<blockquote style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<p class="MsoNormal">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,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><br>
</p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Greg: We still need that
perspective.</p>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Peter responded
with COE's goals:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;text-align:justify;text-indent:47.2px">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.</span></div>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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.</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Prior to that
Peter wrote: </div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt">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]</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:calibri,sans-serif;font-size:11pt"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"
color="#000000">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.</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">In response to
Stephanie's question to me "Who would you propose?"
(responding to my view that we needed a panel that
represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">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.</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">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."</font></div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div lang="EN-GB">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1">
<div
class="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5">
<div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<blockquote
style="margin-top:5pt;margin-bottom:5pt">
<div>
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672m_-2202888440288636124AppleMailSignature"></div>
<div
id="gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672m_-2202888440288636124AppleMailSignature">
<p class="MsoNormal"
style="margin-left:36pt"> </p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Any more would be
piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more
things. One was Peter's suggestion that <i
style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black">The current state of preparation
would imply the following meetings</span></i><span
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">-</span><span
style="text-align:justify;font-size:7pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span><i
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black">a session with the GAC plenary,</span></i><span
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">-</span><span
style="text-align:justify;font-size:7pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span><i
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black">a working lunch with the Board,</span></i><span
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">-</span><span
style="text-align:justify;font-size:7pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span><i
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black">community wide afternoon session
possibly in the format of an “High Interest Topic”.</span></i><span
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">-</span><span
style="text-align:justify;font-size:7pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span><i
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black">alternatively or subsequently a
joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council </span></i><span
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:black">-</span><span
style="text-align:justify;font-size:7pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:black"> </span><i
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black">bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC
and ALAC</span></i></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><i
style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span
style="color:black"><br>
</span></i></div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg: I would
suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not
merely with the more <i>simpatico</i> community groups)
should be considered, to say the least. We would be
honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite).</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Peter wrote, in
response to Vicky:</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"
lang="EN-US">Separately, please note I anticipate having
some additional suggestions for consideration for this
panel by the end of next week.</span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:rgb(31,73,125)"
lang="EN-US"> </span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:wingdings;color:red"
lang="EN-US">à</span><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US">Please 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…</span><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span
style="font-size:11pt;font-family:calibri,sans-serif;color:red"
lang="EN-US"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"
color="#000000">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).</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">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....</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default"><font face="verdana, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div class="gmail_default">Best Regards,</div>
<div class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Greg Shatan</div>
<div class="gmail_default">President</div>
<div class="gmail_default">Intellectual Property
Constituency</div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>