<div>If I understand correctly, the Commissioners are visiting us on the Wednesday? In that case, for maximum attendance, it might be best if our session was from 1:45pm to 3:00pm. But I do not know what the rest of their day looks like. Thanks again for organising this.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Ayden <br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning<br></div><div>Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM<br></div><div>UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38<br></div><div>From: stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca<br></div><div>To: ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is<br></div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><p><span class="size" style="font-size:undefinedpx"><span class="font" style="font-family:Lucida Grande">you are right, it is
on Saturday</span></span><br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden Férdeline
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>Hi Stephanie,<br></div><div> <br></div><div> I don't see an RDS meeting scheduled for the Wednesday? Perhaps
it is on the schedule under a different name, or perhaps I have
just missed it? (Here is a link to the <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" title="http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf" href="http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf">tentative
schedule</a>.)<br></div><div> <br></div><div> Best wishes,<br></div></div><div><br></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user "><div>Ayden <br></div></div><div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton
protonmail_signature_block-empty"><br></div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite"><div>-------- Original Message --------<br></div><div>Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection
Session Planning<br></div><div>Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM<br></div><div>UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55<br></div><div>From: <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a><br></div><div>To: Rafik Dammak <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rafik.dammak@gmail.com"><rafik.dammak@gmail.com></a><br></div><div>ncsg-pc <a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is"><ncsg-pc@lists.ncsg.is></a><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">Ok so
Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how
Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will
ask Peter....</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">Steph</span></span><br></p><div><br></div><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Hi Stephanie,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">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?<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Best,<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div>Rafik<br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>></span>:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">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</span></span><br></p><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731moz-cite-prefix">On
2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hi
Stephanie,<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">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?<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class="m_-9038760910269525731gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh</span><br></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM,
Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">stephanie.perrin@mail.<wbr>utoronto.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">What
happened is this:</span></span><br></p><ul><li><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">GAC was
asked to sponsor, never got it
done</span></span><br></li><li><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">GNSO was
asked to sponsor, proposed
instead to replace a lapsed
HIT with this panel</span></span><br></li><li><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">Invitations
went out for the opening day
of the conference (they had
to, these are busy guys) </span></span><br></li><li><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">IPC
weighed in demanding balanced
HIT style panels (Victoria
sheckler their person on this)</span></span><br></li><li><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">Side
meetings have apparently been
arranged</span></span><br></li><li><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">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 </span></span><br></li></ul><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">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.</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span class="font" style="font-family:"Lucida Grande"">cheers
Steph</span></span><br></p><div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731h5"><p><br></p><div><br></div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116moz-cite-prefix">On
2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Hi
Stephanie,<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif">Can
you clarify something for
me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion wi<wbr>th Data Protection Commissioners?<wbr> </span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif">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?</span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh</span><br></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div>On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at
10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoront<wbr>o.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0
0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><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.<br></p><p>Suggestions welcome.
Pissed off, am I. <br></p><p>Steph<br></p><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-forward-container"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>--------
Forwarded Message
--------<br></div><table class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-email-headers-table" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tbody><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Subject:<br></th><td>Re: ICANN58
Data
Protection
Session
Planning<br></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">Date:<br></th><td>Tue, 14 Feb
2017 21:52:54
-0500<br></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">From:<br></th><td>Greg Shatan <a href="mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><gregshatanipc@gmail.com></a><br></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">To:<br></th><td>KIMPIAN
Peter <a href="mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN@coe.int" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><Peter.KIMPIAN@coe.int></a><br></td></tr><tr><th align="RIGHT" nowrap="nowrap" valign="BASELINE">CC:<br></th><td>Victoria
Sheckler <a href="mailto:vsheckler@riaa.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><vsheckler@riaa.com></a>, James
M. Bladel <a href="mailto:jbladel@godaddy.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><jbladel@godaddy.com></a>, <a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">kathy@kathykleiman.com</a> <a href="mailto:kathy@kathykleiman.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><kathy@kathykleiman.com></a>, <a href="mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">donna.austin@neustar.biz</a> <a href="mailto:donna.austin@neustar.biz" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><donna.austin@neustar.biz></a>, <a href="mailto:heather.forrest@acu.edu.au" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-abbreviated" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">heather.forrest@acu.edu.au</a> <a href="mailto:heather.forrest@acu.edu.au" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><heather.forrest@acu.edu.au></a>,
Stephanie
Perrin <a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><stephanie.perrin@mail.utoront<wbr>o.ca></a>,
KWASNY Sophie <a href="mailto:Sophie.KWASNY@coe.int" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><Sophie.KWASNY@coe.int></a>,
Wilson,
Christopher <a href="mailto:cwilson@21cf.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><cwilson@21cf.com></a>, Tony
Holmes <a href="mailto:tonyarholmes@btinternet.com" class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener"><tonyarholmes@btinternet.com></a><br></td></tr></tbody></table><div><br></div><div><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">All,<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="font" style="font-family: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></span><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="font" 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 style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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).<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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.<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div 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:<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Vicky
wrote: <br></div><div><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt">I
don’t see here
(but I am also
sleep
deprived)
which panelist
will represent
public safety
/ transparency
/ enforcement
concerns.</span></span></span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span><br></div><p style="" class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(80, 0, 80)"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span></span><br></p><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">Peter
responded: <br></div><div><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="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></span></span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline"><span class="size" 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).<br></div></span></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Peter
replied to
James Bladel
in red below:<br></div></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-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><div><p class="MsoNormal">Thanks,
Peter. Looks
like I did
miss this at
some point, so
please accept
my apologies
for the
confusion.<br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Generally,
I"m ok with
this, but a
few thoughts:<br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <br></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 class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:wingdings">à</span> this
expression was
used by ICANN
staff but I
can only agree
that those you
suggested are
much better.</span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Greg:
From my point
of view, this
support is
predicated on
the panel
representing
multiple
perspectives.<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:red"></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">*
I think we
need to keep
the number
panelists to
an absolute
minimum.<span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:wingdings">à</span> 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 class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span> <span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:wingdings">à</span> 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><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div 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.<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:red"></span><br></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <br></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 class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"> </span><span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:wingdings">à</span> I really think
that if CPH
has one
panellist NCPH
should also
has to have 1
only because
of the
arguments
expressed
above.</span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div 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.<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:wingdings">à</span> Therefore our suggestion for the
panel: Becky
Burr, Thomas
Schneider, Jim
Galvin</span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div 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.)<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">This
description
was provided
by Peter:<br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:red"> </span><br></p></div></div><div><div><p style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt" class="MsoNormal"><span class="font" 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><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div 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.<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p style="text-align:justify;text-indent:35.4pt" class="MsoNormal"><span class="font" 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><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt">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></span></span><br></p><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif;display:inline">P<br></div><div>suggested
that the chair
of these
communities
could be
invited to
speak under
these two
slots).<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">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.</span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)"></span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">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).</span><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-h5"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"> </span></span></span><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div 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>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><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif">Vicky
responded:</span><br></div><div><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,<br></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal">Greg:
We still need
that
perspective.<br></p></blockquote></div><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Peter
responded with
COE's goals:<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:16px">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></span><br></div><div><br></div></div><div 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.<br></div></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Prior
to that Peter
wrote: <br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="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></span></span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">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.</span></span><br></div><div><br></div><div 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:<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="font" 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><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family: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."</span><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0px
0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px
solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" class="gmail_quote"><div lang="EN-GB"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-m_-6066402398364144317gmail-m_-4559061870864558269gmail-m_4485284271700414672WordSection1"><div class="m_-9038760910269525731m_-1196239896132014116m_-3173739836713035587gmail-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><p style="margin-left:36pt" class="MsoNormal"> <br></p></div></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div 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 class="colour" style="color:black">The current state of preparation
would imply
the following
meetings</span></i><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif">-</span><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span><i style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:black">a session with the GAC plenary,</span></i><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif">-</span><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span><i style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:black">a working lunch with the Board,</span></i><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif">-</span><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span><i style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:black">community wide afternoon session
possibly in
the format of
an “High
Interest
Topic”.</span></i><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif">-</span><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span><i style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:black">alternatively or subsequently a joint
meeting with
GNSO Council
and ccNSO
Council </span></i><span class="colour" style="color:black"><span class="font" style="font-family:arial, sans-serif">-</span><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:7pt"> </span></span></span><i style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:black">bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC
and ALAC</span></i><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><i style="text-align:justify;font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:black"></span></i><br></div><div 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).<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Peter
wrote, in
response to
Vicky:<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(31, 73, 125)"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt">Separately, please note I anticipate
having some
additional
suggestions
for
consideration
for this panel
by the end of
next week. </span></span></span><span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:wingdings"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt">à</span></span><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt">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></span></span><br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:red"><span class="font" style="font-family:calibri, sans-serif"><span class="size" style="font-size:11pt"></span></span></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"><span class="colour" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0)">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).</span></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family: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....</span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family: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.</span><br></div><div><span class="font" style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif"></span><br></div><div>Best
Regards,<br></div><div><br></div><div>Greg Shatan<br></div><div>President<br></div><div>Intellectual
Property
Constituency<br></div><div style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br></div><div>NCSG-PC mailing list<br></div><div><a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br></div><div><a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><br></div><div>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br></div><div>NCSG-PC mailing list<br></div><div><a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br></div><div><a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/<wbr>listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br></div><div><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
<br></pre></blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div>