<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">I was thinking that
would be the best way to get him involved. When pushing for
GAC to bring a DPA, please remember the structural separation
between the Commission and the DPAs....they could of course
request a rep from the EPDP secretariat, which is staffed from
EU Commission resources but is independent. However, we are
more likely to get Cathrin Bauer Bulst, who is supposed to
represent both the law enforcement side and the DP side...but
rarely represents the latter. Peter K on the other hand is
fully independent.</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers Steph</font></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-07-02 06:39, Rafik Dammak
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAH5sThkEG8E3Q-az5sR8dfxxerwZuB0zVq9EzvDWeUjwwZuYTg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Hi Stephanie,<br>
<br>
for Peter Kimpian, I understand that he won't be suggested as
coming from GAC but as an independent expert/advisor on data
protection? I think there is language about an expert who can be
invited by WG, also to make difference about independent
resources we are requesting too at resources section.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rafik</div>
<div><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">Le dim. 1 juil. 2018 à 21:37, Stephanie
Perrin <<a
href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca"
moz-do-not-send="true">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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. <br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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.<br>
</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">cheers
Steph</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">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....</font></font></p>
<p><font size="+1"><font face="Lucida Grande">And to
repeat, the COE is willing to assign Peter Kimpian
to this group. That would be great.</font></font></p>
<div class="m_6963197824824827679moz-cite-prefix">On
2018-07-01 01:58, Rafik Dammak wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Hi,
<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. </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. </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
I would say numbers won't matter if
representatives are not enough active, something
to have in mind when we will do selection.</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
Best,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Rafik </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
<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"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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><font face="arial,
 helvetica,
sans-serif">Dear all, </font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
 helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
 helvetica,
sans-serif">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.</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
 helvetica,
sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font face="arial,
 helvetica,
sans-serif">Keith Drazek says in the
email that: </font>
<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><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"> Attached is my updated version of the membership structure (following this mornings discussion)</font></i></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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.</font></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)"><font size="2" face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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. </font>
</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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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. </font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">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 </font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">(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. </font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></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)"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
</font></pre>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</div>
<div
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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">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></pre>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_6963197824824827679m_-3995260206717988036m_-8926464735439745194gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana,
sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_6963197824824827679m_-3995260206717988036gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh
</font></div>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a
href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_6963197824824827679mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="m_6963197824824827679moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
NCSG-PC mailing list
<a class="m_6963197824824827679moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a>
<a class="m_6963197824824827679moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NCSG-PC mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">NCSG-PC@lists.ncsg.is</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>