<div>Peter Kimpian would be a great asset on the EPDP. <br></div><div><br></div><div>Incidentally, I see that Perkins Coie has a privacy practice now: <br></div><div><a href="https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/practices/government-regulatory-law/security-privacy-law/index.html">https://www.perkinscoie.com/en/practices/government-regulatory-law/security-privacy-law/index.html</a><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><div>‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐<br></div><div> On 1 July 2018 2:37 PM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:<br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote type="cite" class="protonmail_quote"><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande" class="font">When I made my
intervention (sent a well marked up copy to the entire council
list) my focus and concern was on not letting the business
community get out of balance with the GNSO voting status quo.
As we know, there is a GNSO review coming up and they have
been attempting to minimize us for years, we should IMHO be
watchful for every move. expanding to 9 or some other ratio
seems risky to me....the contracted parties are at 3 and 3, I
think we should try to keep the GNSO voting balance,
recognizing that we have the advisory councils in there which
does put us further into a minority position. </span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande" class="font">My colleague Tara
Whalen, former tech expert from the Office of the PRivacy
COmmissioner of Canada and now at Google, has expressed
interest in joining from SSAC. This would be a very good
choice...and help push back the commercial anti-cybercrime
guys at SSAC from overwhelming us. Just letting you know who
I have been talking to. I would agree with FIk that getting
more people is not as important as getting the right people.</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande" class="font">cheers Steph</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande" class="font">PS for those who were
not paying attention to the high interest panel, I note that
Fab Vayra pointed out his firm Perkins Cole is representing
the top 50 countries in the world on privacy....now as I have
tried to point out, we should be careful what we ask for in
training. I dont want the privacy counsel at Perkins Cole
coming in to brief the EPDP....</span></span><br></p><p><span style="font-size:undefinedpx" class="size"><span style="font-family:Lucida Grande" class="font">And to repeat, the COE
is willing to assign Peter Kimpian to this group. That would
be great.</span></span><br></p><div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="auto"><div><div>Hi, <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">As we discussed in NCSG list, I think we can
argue equality and balance as argument. No idea what is the
right number as it is not vote-based, however we can suggest
follow to follow council composition. The only drawback is
that makes the team quite big in term of size. The other
option is 3 per SG. We can strategize how to use that for
negotiation. I guess proposing first option (council model)
can lead to the 2nd option (3 for each) at the end. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">With regard to AC rep, while we can argue for
1 for SSAC, ALAC, ccNSO(there is no indication they want to
participate), GAC was pushing and being vocal for 5 reps. So
3 would be a compromise. I understand there is desire to
have 1 rep for all as redline but wondering how much it is
feasible. <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div>I would say numbers won't matter if representatives are not
enough active, something to have in mind when we will do
selection.<br></div></div><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div>Best,<br></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Rafik <br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><div><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr">On Sun, Jul 1, 2018, 3:35 AM farzaneh badii
<<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">Dear all, </span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica, sans-serif" class="font"></span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">I checked the mailing list
of the EPDP, and I think our council members have
to make the issue with the latest EPDP membership
structure quite clear.</span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica, sans-serif" class="font"></span><br></div><div class="gmail_default"><div><span style="font-family:arial,
helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">Keith Drazek says in the
email that: </span> <br></div><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><i><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font"> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)</span></i><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">I would like to know based on what rationale it was decided to allocate 9 membership slots to CSG while all other SGs have only 3 members.</span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">Can someone bring up the problem clearly on the list? If you want to coordinate, please lets have a chat about this on the PC mailing list upon your arrival from Panama on Monday. Ayden has weighed in but we need to weigh in and call out the number of membership slots that been allocated to CSG as opposed to NCSG.</span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font"><span style="font-size:13px" class="size">If our council members want the allocation be 6 members (instead of 3) for each SG at NCPH, that is another matter to be discussed (and was suggested on NCSG mailing list by STephanie) but this issue that we are at a disadvantage is clear and needs to be corrected. At NCPH The number of NCSG epdp members should be equal to CSG epdp members. </span></span>
<br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">I see reactions from Ayden and Arsene below. I think there needs to be more reaction, delineating the problem on the mailing list and arguing for equal number of members to participate at SG level. </span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">
</span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">I personally prefer to keep all the SGs limited to 3 EPDP members but if at the moment we can't agree on this, at least we need to flag that CSG is getting 9 members </span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">
</span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">(I was supposed to send this yesterday I don't know if the issue been raised already but I doubt it since you are traveling. If has been then sorry for the unnecessary email. </span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">
</span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><span style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif" class="font">
</span><br></pre><pre style="background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br></pre></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial">Dear Keith,
Can you please confirm you have noted these suggested edits by Ayden and that you will update your document?
If no one has any objection to them, may i suggest these edits be incorporated in the latest version of the draft charter?
Thanks,
Arsene
-----------------
Arsène Tungali,
Sent from my iPhone (excuse typos)
><i> On Jun 27, 2018, at 11:23 PM, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">icann at ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Thank you for preparing this, Keith.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> I do not support other SO/ACs being able to appoint 3 members each. I prefer the original language that they only be permitted to appoint 1 member each (and 1 alternate).
</i>><i>
</i>><i> I remain concerned with the first bullet point, and prefer the original text that members be appointed by Stakeholder Groups. How each Stakeholder Group organises itself internally to appoint its own membership composition is its own prerogative.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Similarly, in regards to bullet point # 9 on establishing consensus, I would like this to be revised from "SG/C" to "Stakeholder Group."
</i>><i>
</i>><i> In regards to bullet point # 12, please revise from, "The CPH must not be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus" to "Neither the CPH nor NCSG of the NCPH may be disadvantaged as a result during any assessment of consensus."
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Thank you again for working on this, Keith.
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Best wishes,
</i>><i>
</i>><i> Ayden Férdeline
</i>><i>
</i>><i>
</i>><i> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
</i>>><i> On 27 June 2018 10:10 PM, Drazek, Keith via Epdp-dt <<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/epdp-dt" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">epdp-dt at icann.org</a>> wrote:
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Hi all,
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion), and also some very preliminary proposed text for the eventual resolution.
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Please send comments!!
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Thanks,
</i>>><i>
</i>>><i> Keith</i><br></pre><div><br></div></div></div></div><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr" class="m_-3995260206717988036m_-8926464735439745194gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif" class="font">Farzaneh</span><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div>--<br></div><div> <br></div><div dir="ltr" class="m_-3995260206717988036gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><span style="font-family:verdana, sans-serif" class="font">Farzaneh</span><br></div></div></div><div>_______________________________________________<br></div><div> NCSG-PC mailing list<br></div><div> <a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br></div><div> <a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br></div></blockquote></div></div></div><div><br></div><pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a 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>