[PC-NCSG] discussion re a number of privacy matters

Sun May 4 20:42:27 EEST 2014

Thanks very much, Stephanie!  I haven't been able to keep up with online discussions in the last couple of days cause I'm visiting family in Utah, but was really glad to see your suggestion that we meet with data commissioners in London cause I had the same thought and last Monday sent Article 29WP a note to see who was coming and what we could organize to meet with them.  I have not received a reply from A29, but want to continue to pursue this meeting with data commissioners in London when I get back to SF in a couple days.  So count me in on helping to pull this together. If you know any specific commissioners or other experts to pull in, please do so.    Let's find a few and see what we can come up with.  Even if ICANN doesn't give us a room, we can still get one by other means, I'm sure.

Thanks,
Robin

On May 3, 2014, at 1:12 AM, William Drake wrote:

> Hi
> 
> I would definitely support some sort of privacy meeting happening.  I don?t know if it?s possible at this late stage to ask for a slot in the regular program, but we could inquire. It?s not a matter of ICANN doing it, we could organize, they just provide the room.  If that?s just not possible we could try doing something ?off campus? in town, but this usually proves very difficult because of schedule density and commitments, hard to ask people to leave the building for several hours.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On May 3, 2014, at 5:55 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
> 
>> I have noticed that some stakeholders just show up at an ICANN meeting (Singapore, Buenos Aires) and demand a meeting with the EWG.  (e.g.. Interpol)
>> I have repeatedly (as others have) suggested meeting with data commissioners.  I think the thing to do for the London meeting, is engineer a meeting in town (possibly persuade Privacy International to hold a little workshop) and get them to invite a couple of solid data commissioners over, then bring the whole meeting to ICANN for the open mike session, or any presentation we might hold as EWG.  There is no point in getting ICANN to do it, they don?t want to.They will offer to send Nigel Hickson in to talk to them.  I like Nigel, but having him go see them does not move the yardsticks on this. 
>> We also need support on the secure credentials thing?.so we could use some folks who are interested in that. (by the way, my emails to David Cake are bouncing any idea why??)  I would love to get Ross Anderson there, so I will reach out to him, maybe even Caspar Bowden might help.  He understands U-prove well.
>> This is all I meant by ambush?.get our own people there. 
>> cheers sp
>> On May 2, 2014, at 11:45 PM, Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>> 
>>> what do you mean by ambush meeting :)?
>>> 
>>> Rafik
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 2014-05-02 21:58 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>:
>>> Thanks Amr!  Be ready!  We need to invite some data commissioners to the London meeting, we need to have an ambush meeting.  More later...
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> > On May 2, 2014, at 4:17 AM, Amr Elsadr <aelsadr at egyptig.org> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > Hey Stephanie,
>>> >
>>> > Thanks for sticking with it!! I can imagine what kind of output would be coming out of the EWG if you weren?t actively participating in it, and I doubt it would have been any good. :)
>>> >
>>> > Amr
>>> >
>>> >> On May 2, 2014, at 2:46 AM, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi folks, when do we have the next policy meeting?  there are a number of privacy issues looming which I would like to put on the agenda, notably:
>>> >> *    the imminent release of the whois report, and what response will be needed
>>> >> *    the completion of the criticism of the privacy policy
>>> >> *    the preparation of a response to the secure protected credentials
>>> >>
>>> >> I must say that I am extremely frustrated, at this moment in time, with my experience on this committee.  It has been  14 long and difficult months, and I feel like I have made no progress with the intractable attitudes of some of the team.  This is interesting for my research, less so for my general sense of wellbeing and joie de vivre.  However, I suppose we are near the end.  I do hope we are able to catch this report and move the good bits forward and the bad bits backwards.
>>> >> cheers stephanie
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> >> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> >
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>   Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>   University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>   ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>   www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140504/e2a3d34b/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140504/e2a3d34b/attachment.sig>