From aelsadr Wed Feb 1 16:08:31 2017 From: aelsadr (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:08:31 +0200 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Selection Standard Committee meeting In-Reply-To: <586a1c69cf8c4f90a32a374b1ee2d8d6@toast.net> References: <586a1c69cf8c4f90a32a374b1ee2d8d6@toast.net> Message-ID: <96878C7B-FB89-4592-86BB-8425D14708B4@egyptig.org> Hi Ed, Thanks for the heads-up on this. At the top of my head, it seems to me that Constituency appointments to the selection committee may be counter-productive (at least from an NCSG perspective). It sets up a rule that restricts the NCSG?s ability to make appointments as it sees fit. This committee is too important IMHO for us to operate under that restriction. I don?t believe that our selected appointees to the committee should be biased to one constituency over the other in their decisions, but should certainly have the necessary leeway to appoint RT members based on how they predict applicants will contribute to RTs constructively. I would hope that our own ability to select committee members would reflect this as well. I do have one question though. Having expressed my thoughts on this, is it predicted that the selection committee will approach appointments to all RTs in a similar method? I ask because the RT working on structural reviews of the GNSO needs to be populated differently from other RTs. While we have constituencies, it would make sense to me that membership in that RT includes SG and C representation. This however, is not true of other RTs, nor do I believe is it desirable for the selection committee either. Thanks again. Amr > On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > ?I wanted to keep everyone in the loop about progress with the small group of Councillors trying to put together a standard selection process for future GNSO appointments. > > The group, consisting of James Bladel, Donna Austin, Heather Forrest, Susan Kawaguchi and myself, met tonight for the first time since the SSR selection. We went through the appointments policy Susan and I had proposed and, in general terms, came up with some proposed tweaks and changes based upon our experiences with the SSR selection process. Staff will be incorporating aspects of our conversation into our document and the group will meet again early next week to move things along. > > I should note that one of the areas of the proposal that I expect will be brought before the full Council for consideration will be the composition of the selection teams. We'll continue to discuss optimum size and diversity within the small group, but it is my sense that the Stakeholder Group versus Constituency basis of representation discussion will once again be brought before the full Council for consideration. > > Nothing needs to be done at the moment - I just wanted to let the PC and my fellow Councillors know we continue to work on finalising a proposal. As we hope this procedural structure will outlast all of us we're committed to doing it right the first time for all time so are taking a more considered approach. I'm not sure we'll be ready with a final proposal before the next set of appointments so we may have to engage with an ad hoc appointment process one last time. We'll have an update for the full Council at the February meeting and if anything of consequence happens before then I'll be sure to let everybody know. > > Congratulations, once again, to James Gannon and Rao Naveed Bin Rais for obtaining GNSO endorsements for the SSR Review Team. We won't always get 100% of our applicants chosen for external GNSO appointments, but with a fair, equitable and transparent process I'm confident that the talent of our member volunteers will be recognised and tapped by the GNSO for future appointments for years to come. > > Kind Regards, > > Ed Morris > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1356 bytes Desc: not available URL: From egmorris1 Wed Feb 1 16:32:40 2017 From: egmorris1 (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:32:40 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Selection Standard Committee meeting In-Reply-To: <96878C7B-FB89-4592-86BB-8425D14708B4@egyptig.org> References: <586a1c69cf8c4f90a32a374b1ee2d8d6@toast.net> <96878C7B-FB89-4592-86BB-8425D14708B4@egyptig.org> Message-ID: <4982a55f2ef04ca687073d26c57288df@toast.net> Hi Amr Thanks for the heads-up on this. At the top of my head, it seems to me that Constituency appointments to the selection committee may be counter-productive (at least from an NCSG perspective). It sets up a rule that restricts the NCSG?s ability to make appointments as it sees fit. This committee is too important IMHO for us to operate under that restriction. I don?t believe that our selected appointees to the committee should be biased to one constituency over the other in their decisions, but should certainly have the necessary leeway to appoint RT members based on how they predict applicants will contribute to RTs constructively. I would hope that our own ability to select committee members would reflect this as well. Agreed. I do have one question though. Having expressed my thoughts on this, is it predicted that the selection committee will approach appointments to all RTs in a similar method? Yes I ask because the RT working on structural reviews of the GNSO needs to be populated differently from other RTs. While we have constituencies, it would make sense to me that membership in that RT includes SG and C representation. This however, is not true of other RTs, nor do I believe is it desirable for the selection committee either. Agree on both points. There are multiple ways of dealing with structural review RT's and ensuring the representation of all SG and C's. We could hard bake it into the policy we are now creating, ensure that it is in any call issued by Council etc. Let me bring this before the Selection Standard Committee at our next meeting, see what others think and try to accommodate this concern. We'll also has the chance to talk about, and fine tune the Policy, to recognise the special nature of he GNSO review teams when the full Council considers the work of the small team Selection Standards committee. Thanks Amr - very helpful. Best, Ed Morris Thanks again. Amr > On Jan 30, 2017, at 11:46 PM, Edward Morris wrote: > > Hi everybody, > > ?I wanted to keep everyone in the loop about progress with the small group of Councillors trying to put together a standard selection process for future GNSO appointments. > > The group, consisting of James Bladel, Donna Austin, Heather Forrest, Susan Kawaguchi and myself, met tonight for the first time since the SSR selection. We went through the appointments policy Susan and I had proposed and, in general terms, came up with some proposed tweaks and changes based upon our experiences with the SSR selection process. Staff will be incorporating aspects of our conversation into our document and the group will meet again early next week to move things along. > > I should note that one of the areas of the proposal that I expect will be brought before the full Council for consideration will be the composition of the selection teams. We'll continue to discuss optimum size and diversity within the small group, but it is my sense that the Stakeholder Group versus Constituency basis of representation discussion will once again be brought before the full Council for consideration. > > Nothing needs to be done at the moment - I just wanted to let the PC and my fellow Councillors know we continue to work on finalising a proposal. As we hope this procedural structure will outlast all of us we're committed to doing it right the first time for all time so are taking a more considered approach. I'm not sure we'll be ready with a final proposal before the next set of appointments so we may have to engage with an ad hoc appointment process one last time. We'll have an update for the full Council at the February meeting and if anything of consequence happens before then I'll be sure to let everybody know. > > Congratulations, once again, to James Gannon and Rao Naveed Bin Rais for obtaining GNSO endorsements for the SSR Review Team. We won't always get 100% of our applicants chosen for external GNSO appointments, but with a fair, equitable and transparent process I'm confident that the talent of our member volunteers will be recognised and tapped by the GNSO for future appointments for years to come. > > Kind Regards, > > Ed Morris > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan Fri Feb 10 14:15:37 2017 From: Stefania.Milan (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 12:15:37 +0000 Subject: [PC-NCSG] missing today's call Message-ID: dear all i am under water with some work-related student problems, and have a grading sessions (determined by the department, but by myself) tomorrow, exactly when the call starts. I am so sorry... :-( I will try to listen it as much as I can, but not clear how that might work.. st. The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From kathy Tue Feb 28 19:15:40 2017 From: kathy (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 12:15:40 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84592196-f35e-3292-bab9-0eaa1d710a2a@kathykleiman.com> FYI - extension of 2 weeks on IGO-INGO comments... Best, Kathy -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial Report Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:34:30 +0000 From: Mary Wong To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org Dear all, In view of community requests received for an extension of the public comment period for our Initial Report, the Working Group co-chairs have agreed to an extension of 2 weeks following the close of the upcoming ICANN58 Public Meeting. The comment period will now close on *30 March 2017*: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en. We do not anticipate this extension affecting the current plan to discuss our preliminary recommendations, and feedback received so far, with the community at ICANN58. There have been several comments received to date, as some members will have noted: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/. Staff will of course continue to encourage interested community groups and members to submit their comments as soon as they can. Thanks and cheers Mary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp From mshears Tue Feb 28 23:54:33 2017 From: mshears (matthew shears) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 16:54:33 -0500 Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial Report In-Reply-To: <84592196-f35e-3292-bab9-0eaa1d710a2a@kathykleiman.com> References: <84592196-f35e-3292-bab9-0eaa1d710a2a@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <2020c974-d97d-cf14-d967-d1b0c40c0981@cdt.org> Thanks Kathy - this is very helpful - perhaps we can use some of limited time together in CPH to craft a response? Matthew On 28/02/2017 12:15, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > FYI - extension of 2 weeks on IGO-INGO comments... > > Best, Kathy > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial > Report > Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:34:30 +0000 > From: Mary Wong > To: gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org > > > > Dear all, > > In view of community requests received for an extension of the public > comment period for our Initial Report, the Working Group co-chairs > have agreed to an extension of 2 weeks following the close of the > upcoming ICANN58 Public Meeting. The comment period will now close on > *30 March 2017*: > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en. > > > We do not anticipate this extension affecting the current plan to > discuss our preliminary recommendations, and feedback received so far, > with the community at ICANN58. There have been several comments > received to date, as some members will have noted: > https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/. > Staff will of course continue to encourage interested community groups > and members to submit their comments as soon as they can. > > Thanks and cheers > > Mary > > > > _______________________________________________ > PC-NCSG mailing list > PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org > http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed Feb 1 01:49:38 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 23:49:38 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Call for nominations: PC Chair election In-Reply-To: References: <20170116105713.GD7847@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> <20170117223017.pdwpzyyfvhfda3bd@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <5B8513B0-2900-4899-8348-033A97B3A84F@toast.net> Hi Rafik, Thank you so much for stepping up. It's a thankless job but I'll thank you anyhow. :) Full respect and support. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 25 Jan 2017, at 04:50, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > hi, > > I am happy to run for PC chair election if it is not late. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-01-18 7:30 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen : >> Dear all, >> >> I failed to specify timeline for the process, we discussed it in >> our call that just ended that agreed to have one week for nominations >> and their acceptance, and then another week for voting. So: >> >> * Candidates should be nominated and have indicated their acceptance >> within one week from now, by 24 January 23:59 UTC. >> >> * Vice Chairs may also be nominated and if any are, they will be >> voted on at the same time as the Chair. >> >> * Voting will take place openly on this list after that and end one >> week later, 31 Janyary 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted. >> >> * New PC Chair will take begin her or his term on 1 February. >> >> Tapani >> >> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:57:13PM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >> >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Our charter says >> > >> > "A Chair will be elected or replaced from among the members of the >> > NCSG-PC by a 2/3 vote of the NCSG-PC membership on a yearly basis." >> > >> > "One or more Vice-Chairs may be chosen by the NCSG-PC on a >> > yearly basis." >> > >> > While beginning of the term isn't explicitly stated, calendar >> > year is a good default, and in any case the election should >> > happen at least roughly every year. So now is a good time. >> > >> > There is no election procedure defined, I would assume open >> > election on the list to be sufficient, but we can arrange >> > a closed election if desired. >> > >> > All PC members (but not observers) are eligible, councillors as well >> > as constituency representatives, with the sole exception of NCSG Chair >> > (me), and there's no term limit so current Chair and Vice Chairs are >> > also eligible. >> > >> > So, nominations please! >> > >> > Self-nominations are obviously also most welcome. >> > >> > -- >> > Tapani Tarvainen >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 1 02:00:42 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 19:00:42 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO and AT-Large Calls this week In-Reply-To: <9c96d519-99c4-7160-8d6a-23776f224237@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <9c96d519-99c4-7160-8d6a-23776f224237@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <73c0b2e2-251c-c054-10df-bba85e9ca5e4@mail.utoronto.ca> Could we do something like this too? So helpful..... cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO and AT-Large Calls this week Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:58:21 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org This is super helpful Glenn! thanks Stephanie Perrin On 2017-01-31 16:24, Glenn McKnight wrote: > Please see the attached list of call this week > > *Monday 30 January 2017* > > 15:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group > https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw > > 19:00 UTC: WS2 Jurisdiction https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw > > > *Tuesday 31 January 2017* > 13:00 UTC: WS2 Diversity https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw > > 19:00 UTC: WS2 Human Rights https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw > > 20:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ? Track 1 - > Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue > https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw > > > *Wednesday 01 February 2017* > 17:00 UTC: (GNSO) Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in > all gTLDs PDP Working Grouphttps://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw > > 18:30 UTC: (At-Large) AFRALO Monthly Call > https://community.icann.org/x/bIXRAw > > 19:00 UTC: WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith > https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw > > > *Thursday **02 February** 2017* > 13:00 UTC: WS2 Staff Accountability > https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw > > 19:00 UTC: WS2 SO/AC Accountability > https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw > > 20:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ? Track 2 ? > Legal/Regulatory Issues https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw > > *Friday **03 February** 2017* > None > Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn at gmail.com > skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight . > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online athttp://www.naralo.org > ------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Wed Feb 1 10:30:46 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 10:30:46 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election In-Reply-To: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Dear all, Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even without the "+1". Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection means I'll call for a new election. Tapani On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Dear PC members, > > Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, > who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly > on this list: > > Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with > "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep > the vote indication in the beginning.) > > Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, > and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. > > Thank you. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen From mshears at cdt.org Wed Feb 1 10:48:10 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 09:48:10 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election In-Reply-To: <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <9dbd5d22-8dbb-a908-8806-c0105582bd1e@cdt.org> Thanks Tapani. Those who have not voted please do so. Also, I understand that we need to find a second Vice Chair and would welcome expressions of interest. Thanks. Matthew On 01/02/2017 09:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my > instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). > All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). > > I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the > eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting > Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even > without the "+1". > > Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. > Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to > extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. > > So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. > > As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection > means I'll call for a new election. > > Tapani > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Dear PC members, >> >> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, >> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly >> on this list: >> >> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with >> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep >> the vote indication in the beginning.) >> >> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, >> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 From aelsadr at egyptig.org Wed Feb 1 16:19:15 2017 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org (Amr Elsadr) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:19:15 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election In-Reply-To: <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi, I would go ahead and include Rafik?s vote for himself as well as Stephanie?s show of support to the vote count. Also, Ed indicated support for Rafik (although he also didn?t put in a +1), which would take the votes in favor of Rafik to 9 out of 11. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 1, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear all, > > Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my > instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). > All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). > > I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the > eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting > Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even > without the "+1". > > Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. > Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to > extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. > > So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. > > As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection > means I'll call for a new election. > > Tapani > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Dear PC members, >> >> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, >> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly >> on this list: >> >> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with >> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep >> the vote indication in the beginning.) >> >> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, >> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 1356 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 1 16:22:16 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 09:22:16 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO and AT-Large Calls this week In-Reply-To: <73c0b2e2-251c-c054-10df-bba85e9ca5e4@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <9c96d519-99c4-7160-8d6a-23776f224237@mail.utoronto.ca> <73c0b2e2-251c-c054-10df-bba85e9ca5e4@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Excellent idea, Stephanie. This looks super useful; the only improvement I would make would be to include a link to the Adobe Connect room as well. I wonder if this is something that ICANN staff could produce and disseminate to our membership on an ongoing basis? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO and AT-Large Calls this week Local Time: 1 February 2017 12:00 AM UTC Time: 1 February 2017 00:00 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Could we do something like this too? So helpful..... cheers Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] GNSO and AT-Large Calls this week Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2017 18:58:21 -0500 From: Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org This is super helpful Glenn! thanks Stephanie Perrin On 2017-01-31 16:24, Glenn McKnight wrote: Please see the attached list of call this week Monday 30 January 2017 15:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Working Group https://community.icann.org/x/RgV1Aw 19:00 UTC: WS2 Jurisdiction https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw Tuesday 31 January 2017 13:00 UTC: WS2 Diversity https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw 19:00 UTC: WS2 Human Rights https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw 20:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ? Track 1 - Overall Process/Support/Outreach Issue https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw Wednesday 01 February 2017 17:00 UTC: (GNSO) Review of all Rights Protection Mechanisms (RPMs) in all gTLDs PDP Working Group https://community.icann.org/x/wCWAAw 18:30 UTC: (At-Large) AFRALO Monthly Call https://community.icann.org/x/bIXRAw 19:00 UTC: WS2 Guidelines for Good Faith https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw Thursday 02 February 2017 13:00 UTC: WS2 Staff Accountability https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw 19:00 UTC: WS2 SO/AC Accountability https://community.icann.org/x/ihWOAw 20:00 UTC: (GNSO) New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Sub Team ? Track 2 ? Legal/Regulatory Issues https://community.icann.org/x/FT2AAw Friday 03 February 2017 None Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn at gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight . ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 1 17:10:19 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2017 10:10:19 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election In-Reply-To: References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Please add my +1 to the running tally ? Rafik has my full support. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election Local Time: 1 February 2017 2:12 PM UTC Time: 1 February 2017 14:12 From: aelsadr at egyptig.org To: Tapani Tarvainen ncsg-pc Hi, I would go ahead and include Rafik?s vote for himself as well as Stephanie?s show of support to the vote count. Also, Ed indicated support for Rafik (although he also didn?t put in a +1), which would take the votes in favor of Rafik to 9 out of 11. Thanks. Amr > On Feb 1, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear all, > > Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my > instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). > All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). > > I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the > eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting > Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even > without the "+1". > > Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. > Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to > extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. > > So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. > > As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection > means I'll call for a new election. > > Tapani > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Dear PC members, >> >> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, >> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly >> on this list: >> >> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with >> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep >> the vote indication in the beginning.) >> >> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, >> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 1 18:06:03 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 11:06:03 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election In-Reply-To: <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <9c99d377-9c4b-f91e-f32c-beea4e6df1cc@mail.utoronto.ca> Sorry I did not fully understand that you were being literal about +1. +1 Stephanie Perrin On 2017-02-01 03:30, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > Dear all, > > Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my > instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). > All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). > > I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the > eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting > Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even > without the "+1". > > Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. > Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to > extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. > > So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. > > As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection > means I'll call for a new election. > > Tapani > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > >> Dear PC members, >> >> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, >> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly >> on this list: >> >> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with >> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep >> the vote indication in the beginning.) >> >> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, >> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. >> >> Thank you. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed Feb 1 18:09:56 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 1 Feb 2017 16:09:56 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election In-Reply-To: References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <4DF1B211-4B83-4CCE-AC73-399C41FA5CD3@toast.net> Oops...+1. Sent from my iPhone > On 1 Feb 2017, at 14:15, Amr Elsadr wrote: > > Hi, > > I would go ahead and include Rafik?s vote for himself as well as Stephanie?s show of support to the vote count. Also, Ed indicated support for Rafik (although he also didn?t put in a +1), which would take the votes in favor of Rafik to 9 out of 11. > > Thanks. > > Amr > >> On Feb 1, 2017, at 10:30 AM, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >> >> Dear all, >> >> Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my >> instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). >> All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). >> >> I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the >> eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting >> Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even >> without the "+1". >> >> Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. >> Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to >> extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. >> >> So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. >> >> As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection >> means I'll call for a new election. >> >> Tapani >> >> >>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: >>> >>> Dear PC members, >>> >>> Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, >>> who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly >>> on this list: >>> >>> Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with >>> "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep >>> the vote indication in the beginning.) >>> >>> Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, >>> and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Feb 3 12:29:27 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 12:29:27 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election: congratulations, Rafik! In-Reply-To: <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <20170203102927.GA17378@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Dear all, With Stephanie, Ed and Ayden jumping in, I count 9 votes in favour of Rafik, none against, nor any objections to the 48h extension. So Rafik has been elected: congratulations! Tapani On Feb 01 10:30, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > Dear all, > > Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my > instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). > All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of 11). > > I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the > eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting > Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even > without the "+1". > > Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. > Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to > extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. > > So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. > > As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection > means I'll call for a new election. > > Tapani > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > > Dear PC members, > > > > Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik Dammak, > > who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place openly > > on this list: > > > > Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with > > "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep > > the vote indication in the beginning.) > > > > Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members have voted, > > and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. > > > > Thank you. > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Feb 3 16:37:20 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 3 Feb 2017 16:37:20 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] policy call on Friday Feb 10 at 1400 Message-ID: <20170203143719.GC17378@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Dear PC members, Because of the intersessional we're going to have our next policy call on next Friday, February 10, at 1400 UTC. There isn't really much choice in the time - at least that one works for Rafik and me. So just I hope as many as possible can join. Note that we'll have time in Reykjavik to talk about any last-minute things on the morning of Feb 16, around 0900 UTC, just before the council session. -- Tapani Tarvainen From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 6 01:06:39 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2017 08:06:39 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PC Chair election: congratulations, Rafik! In-Reply-To: <20170203102927.GA17378@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> References: <20170125085503.4obdj53zhglxoeu5@tarvainen.info> <20170201083046.3nk57jp6jtphi5gw@tarvainen.info> <20170203102927.GA17378@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks everyone for voting, we got many things to do already. I will send email within this week to cover some tasks and do planning. Best, Rafik 2017-02-03 19:29 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen : > Dear all, > > With Stephanie, Ed and Ayden jumping in, I count 9 votes > in favour of Rafik, none against, nor any objections to > the 48h extension. > > So Rafik has been elected: congratulations! > > Tapani > > On Feb 01 10:30, Tapani Tarvainen (ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > > Dear all, > > > > Counting messages it seems only six PC members voted according to my > > instructions below (me, Matthew, Marilia, Stefania, Poncelet and Amr). > > All supported Rafik but that's two short of the required 8 (2/3 out of > 11). > > > > I assume this is the fault of my too poor instructions - we'd have the > > eight by taking Rafik's acceptance as a vote for himself and counting > > Stephanie's statement "Fully endorse Rafik to chair" as a vote even > > without the "+1". > > > > Now changing election rules after results are in is in general not good. > > Under the circumstances, however, I think it would be reasonable to > > extend the election period, if we have full consensus about it. > > > > So, let's give it another 48 hours, until 23:59 UTC on 2 February. > > > > As noted though I want full consensus here: even a single objection > > means I'll call for a new election. > > > > Tapani > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 10:55:03AM +0200, Tapani Tarvainen ( > ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info) wrote: > > > > > Dear PC members, > > > > > > Nomination period for PC Chair is over. We have one candidate, Rafik > Dammak, > > > who has accepted the nomination. As announced voting will take place > openly > > > on this list: > > > > > > Reply to this message on the list with "+1" to vote for Rafik or with > > > "-1" to vote against. (Additional comments are allowed, just keep > > > the vote indication in the beginning.) > > > > > > Voting will end on 31 January at 23:59 UTC, or when all PC members > have voted, > > > and if elected, Rafik will begin his term as PC Chair on 1 February. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > -- > > > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue Feb 7 06:20:40 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 04:20:40 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee References: Message-ID: <0CFD7273-6C67-4387-BCDF-1E39E0096107@toast.net> Hi everybody, I hope we can discuss this on our policy committee call later this week and in other meetings before our February 16th Council call. The Standing Selection Committee met tonight in reduced fashion: due to technical problems and conflicting commitments only two of the five team members attended the entire call. Changes, based upon staff recommendations, have been made to the initial proposal and I don't believe these changes are in the interest of the NCSG. Hopefully we'll have time to talk about things and come out with a common position going forward. Overall I think this is a good proposal but we do have work to do on the full Council. I look forward to discussing things with everyone, particularly my fellow Councillors, on Friday. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: > From: Susan Kawaguchi > Date: 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT > To: GNSO Council List > Subject: [council] Standing Selection Committee > > Hello All, > > Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing Selection Committee. This committee would be composed of councilors to select candidates for review teams and other positions. > > We will discuss next week at the council meeting. > > Best regards, > > Susan > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Draft Charter - Standing Selection Committee - redline - 6 February 2017[1].docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 121635 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 7 22:00:21 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 15:00:21 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder In-Reply-To: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E2254BE8D@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> References: <8E84A14FB84B8141B0E4713BAFF5B84E2254BE8D@Exchange.sierracorporation.com> Message-ID: <65e8888f-58d5-2fe5-3ec9-322d42361964@mail.utoronto.ca> We should discuss our views on this in the Friday call. Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2017 00:13:44 +0000 From: Phil Corwin To: James M. Bladel , GNSO Council List FYI, the BC supports the reduced scope of this upcoming review. *Philip S. Corwin, Founding Principal* *Virtualaw LLC* *1155 F Street, NW* *Suite 1050* *Washington, DC 20004* *202-559-8597/Direct* *202-559-8750/Fax* *202-255-6172/Cell*** ** *Twitter: @VlawDC* */"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey/* *From:*council-bounces at gnso.icann.org [mailto:council-bounces at gnso.icann.org] *On Behalf Of *James M. Bladel *Sent:* Friday, January 27, 2017 10:57 PM *To:* GNSO Council List *Subject:* [council] Fwd: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder Councilors - Please see the message from CCWG Staff, below. Most of the SO-AC chairs (myself included) took this note as informational, and missed the call to action. In a nutshell, the CCWG co-chairs note that the upcoming ATRT3 review team will overlap significantly with the recently completed (Workstream 1) and ongoing work (Workstream 2) of CCWG-ACCT. Like the approach to WHOIS2, they are proposing a reduced scope for this next review to avoid collision/duplication of work. I'd welcome any comments or thoughts you might have on this, and we can add it as a discussion item for our draft agenda for our Council call in February. Thank you, J. ------------- James Bladel _____________________________ From: Bernard Turcotte > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 14:41 Subject: CCWG-Accountability WG proposal for a Limited Scope of the ATRT3 Review - reminder ??SO and AC Chairs, ?This is a reminder that the CCWG-Accountability has not received any replies to its December 2nd proposal (original message below) regarding the scope of the upcoming ATRT3 review which will be publishing its call for volunteers by the end of January. As stated in the proposal? there are a number of significant overlaps between the work of the CCWG-Accountability and a standard ATRT review which would cause an important duplication of work between these two processes. The CCWG-Accountability simply wishes to ensure that the SO's and AC's are aware that if there is no request from the SO's and AC's to modify the scope of the ATRT3 review prior to its launch that it will proceed as a standard review. ?The Co?-Chairs of the CCWG-Accountability remain available to the SO's and AC's for further discussions or answer any questions. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support to the CCWG-Accountability for The Co-Chairs of the ? CCWG-Accountability. On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 5:07 AM, Mathieu Weill > wrote: Dear SO & AC Chairs, The CCWG-Accountability (CCWG) at its face to face meeting at the ICANN 56 in Helsinki considered the implications of the collision of topics, and therefore efforts, between ATRT3 and Work Stream 2 (WS2) (please see Annex 1 for a detailed consideration of this issue). In its discussion of this issue the CCWG considered the following points: ?Collision of topics between WS2 and ATRT3 - There is potential for significant overlap between WS2 topics and the scope of ATRT3 as 6 of the 9 WS2 topics are accountability and transparency issues ATRT3 could also consider. ?Timing of the two activities - WS2 began in July 2016 with an objective of completing its work by the end of 2017. ATRT3, which is expected to take 12 months to complete, is currently scheduled to begin in January 2017 but could potentially be delayed until February 2018 under the new Bylaws (which require ATRT every 5 years versus the AoC requirement for every 3 years). It would seem inefficient, at best, to have both of these activities working on the same topics independently, while drawing on the same pool of community volunteers. At worst, ATRT3 and WS2 groups could issue recommendations that are conflicting or duplicative. ?Implementation of recommendations ? The Bylaws for WS2 give CCWG recommendations greater weight when it comes to board consideration, relative to recommendations from an ATRT organized under the AoC. While in Helsinki, the CCWG concluded its preferred approach, as communicated in our 8-Aug-2016letter to the Board of ICANN: Convene ATRT3 as soon as possible with the limited scope of assessing implementation of ATRT2 recommendations. Allow WS2 to handle new recommendations for accountability and transparency. The fourth ATRT would convene before 2022 and would assess all accountability and transparency topics and make recommendations The ICANN Board replied to the CCWG letter on 24-Oct-2016, saying, It is not up to the Board to dictate the scope of this important community review. While we share the concerns raised of avoiding duplication of resources, it is essential that the broader ICANN community have a voice in determining how the ATRT3 should be scoped in alignment with the Bylaws. The Board and the ICANN Organization stand ready to support the community?s direction. Accordingly, the CCWG is now proposing to community leadership the following approach: ?Requesting that the SO/AC leadership select (following the new Bylaws) a small group of review team members that have either participated in or closely tracked ATRT2. ?Requesting the ICANN organization to do a "self-assessment" reporting on a) the extent to which each recommendation was followed and/or implemented; b) the effectiveness in addressing the issues identified by ATRT2; and c) the need for additional implementation. ?Specifically request that the Review Team exclude the issues that are already covered by the CCWG-Accountability WS2 (see Annex 1). ?Suggesting that the work be conducted & completed more quickly than normal, such as asking that the Final Report be issued within six months If the suggested approach above is agreeable to SO/AC community, the next steps would be: ?SO/AC leadership to issue a public statement or a letter to ICANN CEO and Board Chair that explains why limited scope is appropriate and articulates that they have broad support of the ICANN community ?Call for Volunteers to note limited scope & unique expertise sought ?Reach out to previous ATRT Review Team members and encourage them to apply for the narrowly-scoped ATRT3 Review Team ?Propose a Charter for the ATRT3 Review Team to adopt that tracks the limited Scope Best regards, Thomas Rickert, Leon Sanchez & Mathieu Weill CCWG-Accountability Co-chairs _______________________________________________ Acct-Staff mailing list Acct-Staff at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/acct-staff ------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4749/13802 - Release Date: 01/20/17 Internal Virus Database is out of date. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 8 13:54:05 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 20:54:05 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee In-Reply-To: <0CFD7273-6C67-4387-BCDF-1E39E0096107@toast.net> References: <0CFD7273-6C67-4387-BCDF-1E39E0096107@toast.net> Message-ID: Dear Ed, Thanks for sharing this and raising your concerns. I think the selection process is definitely a topic for discussion at the policy call. can you list quickly the concerns you have prior to the call? I think some changes are editorial but I saw that several paragraphs on page 6 and 7 were removed which are related to decision making. Best, Rafik 2017-02-07 13:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi everybody, > > I hope we can discuss this on our policy committee call later this week > and in other meetings before our February 16th Council call. > > The Standing Selection Committee met tonight in reduced fashion: due to > technical problems and conflicting commitments only two of the five team > members attended the entire call. Changes, based upon staff > recommendations, have been made to the initial proposal and I don't believe > these changes are in the interest of the NCSG. Hopefully we'll have time to > talk about things and come out with a common position going forward. > > Overall I think this is a good proposal but we do have work to do on the > full Council. I look forward to discussing things with everyone, > particularly my fellow Councillors, on Friday. > > Best, > > Ed Morris > > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From:* Susan Kawaguchi > *Date:* 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT > *To:* GNSO Council List > *Subject:* *[council] Standing Selection Committee* > > Hello All, > > > > Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing Selection > Committee. This committee would be composed of councilors to select > candidates for review teams and other positions. > > > > We will discuss next week at the council meeting. > > > > Best regards, > > > > Susan > > > _______________________________________________ > council mailing list > council at gnso.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Thu Feb 9 02:50:31 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 8 Feb 2017 19:50:31 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] fw: [council] Proposed Final Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 16 February at 12:00 UTC Message-ID: <5fb6ba499b94471daa907592a1f207af@toast.net> fyi... ---------------------------------------- From: "Nathalie Peregrine" Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 10:40 PM To: "council at gnso.icann.org" Cc: "gnso-secs at icann.org" Subject: [council] Proposed Final Agenda GNSO Council Meeting 16 February at 12:00 UTC Dear councilors, Please find the Proposed Final Agenda for the GNSO Council Meeting on 16 February at 12:00 UTC. Date and link for item 8 will be added when available. PROPOSED FINAL AGENDA FOR GNSO COUNCIL MEETING 16 February 2017 Please note that all documents referenced in the agenda have been gathered on a Wiki page for convenience and easier access: https://community.icann.org/x/Oo7RAw This agenda was established according to the GNSO Operating Procedures v3.2, updated on 01 September 2016. For convenience: An excerpt of the ICANN Bylaws defining the voting thresholds is provided in Appendix 1 at the end of this agenda. An excerpt from the Council Operating Procedures defining the absentee voting procedures is provided in Appendix 2 at the end of this agenda. Coordinated Universal Time: 12:00 UTC http://tinyurl.com/gpnsgbw 04:00 Los Angeles; 07:00 Washington; 12:00 London; 15:00 Istanbul; 23:00 Hobart GNSO Council Meeting Audio Cast To join the event click on the link: http://stream.icann.org:8000/gnso.m3u Councilors should notify the GNSO Secretariat in advance if they will not be able to attend and/or need a dial out call. ___________________________________ Item 1. Administrative Matters (5 mins) 1.1 - Roll Call 1.2 - Updates to Statements of Interest 1.3 - Review / Amend Agenda 1.4 - Note the status of minutes for the previous Council meetings per the GNSO Operating Procedures: Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 15 December 2016, posted on 4 January 2017. Minutes of the meeting of the GNSO Council on 19 January 2017, posted on XXXXXXXXX. Item 2. Opening Remarks / Review of Projects & Action List (10 mins) 2.1 - Review focus areas and provide updates on specific key themes / topics, to include review of Projects List and Action Item List Item 3. Consent Agenda (5 mins) 3.1 ? Confirmation of Continuation of James Bladel?s (GNSO Chair) Term as Interim GNSO Representative to the Empowered Community (EC) Administration On 29 September 2016, the GNSO Council passed a resolution (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20160929-2) appointing the GNSO Chair (currently James Bladel) as the GNSO?s representative to the EC Administration on an interim basis. The Council resolution had contemplated that the GNSO would finalize its decision as to its appointment of the person designated to represent the GNSO on the EC Administration within three months of the completion of the work of the GNSO Rights & Obligations under Revised ICANN Bylaws Drafting Team (DT) and adoption of its recommendations by the GNSO Council. The DT?s Final Report was accepted by the GNSO Council on 1 December 2016 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/resolutions#20161201-1), and work is currently underway on drafting proposed necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and, if applicable, any ICANN Bylaws pertaining to the GNSO. Here the Council is expected to confirm that its appointment of the GNSO Chair as interim GNSO representative to the EC Administration is intended to remain in effect until the necessary modifications or additions to the GNSO Operating Procedures and ICANN Bylaws are completed. Item 4. COUNCIL VOTE ? Approval of Final Report from the WHOIS Conflict with National Laws Procedure Implementation Advisory Group (20 minutes) The GNSO?s 2005 Policy on WHOIS Conflicts with National Laws (http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois-privacy/council-rpt-18jan06.htm) had recommended the creation of a Procedure to address conflicts between a contracted party's WHOIS obligations and local/national privacy laws or regulations. Under the existing Procedure (dating from January 2008), a contracted party that credibly demonstrates that it is legally prevented from complying with its WHOIS obligations can invoke the Procedure, which defines a credible demonstration as one in which the contracted party has received "notification of an investigation, litigation, regulatory proceeding or other government or civil action that might affect its compliance." The Procedure has never been invoked. In May 2014, ICANN launched a review of the Procedure. An Implementation Advisory Group (IAG) was formed and began its work in January 2015. The IAG?s Initial Report was published for public comment in November 2015. On 25 May 2016, the IAG?s Final Report, together with Appendices and a summary memo (https://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg18700.html), was delivered to the GNSO Council. The IAG Final Report proposes modifying the Procedure to allow for an additional trigger where a party has obtained, and submitted to ICANN, a written statement from the government agency charged with enforcing its data privacy laws indicating that a particular WHOIS obligation is in conflict with its national law. The Council received an update on the proposed modification at ICANN56 and discussed the matter further at its meetings on 21 July 2016 and 24 August 2016. Following additional discussions among a small group of Council volunteers, a revised motion was developed and circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-February/019731.html). Here the Council will discuss and vote on the revised motion, on whether the proposed IAG modification to the Procedure conforms to the intent of the original GNSO Policy, a request that ICANN staff review the feasibility of the proposed additional trigger, and a proposal that the next periodic review of the Procedure commence no later than 31 May 2017. 4.1 ? Presentation of the motion (https://community.icann.org/x/PI7RAw) (James Bladel) 4.2 ? Council discussion 4.3 ? Council vote (voting threshold: simple majority) Item 5. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposal to Limit the Scope of the Upcoming Third Accountability and Transparency Review (15 minutes) On 2 December 2016, the co-chairs of the Cross Community Working Group for Accountability (CCWG-Accountability) had proposed to the community that the forthcoming third review of ICANN?s mechanisms for ensuring accountability and transparency (ATRT-3) be limited in scope to assessing the implementation of the recommendations from the second accountability and transparency review (ATRT-2) (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2016-December/019581.html). The CCWG-Accountability co-chairs? proposal was based on the acknowledgement that, without such a limitation, there is likely to be significant overlap between the work of the CCWG-Acccountability?s Work Stream 2 (WS2) and ATRT-3, since 6 of the 9 WS2 topics concern issues of accountability and transparency. On 25 January 2017, the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs sent a second request for input on its proposal from all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, having received no comments following its initial December request and noting that the call for volunteers for ATRT-3 was due to be published by the end of January (https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/2017-January/019715.html) Here the Council will discuss whether or not the GNSO Council and community have any concerns over or objections to the CCWG-Accountability proposal. 5.1 ? Summary and update (Council Chairs) 5.2 ? Council discussion 5.3 ? Next steps Item 6. COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Charter for a GNSO Standing Selection Committee for Selection of GNSO Representatives/Nominees to Future Review Teams and Other ICANN Structures (20 minutes) On 13 December 2016, Councilors Susan Kawaguchi and Ed Morris circulated for the Council?s consideration a draft document proposing a set of criteria and a uniform process for the selection of GNSO representatives to future Review Teams, including for the various reviews mandated by the ICANN Bylaws, and other ICANN structures for which the GNSO will need to appoint, nominate or endorse candidates (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/gnso-appointments-procedure-13dec16-en.pdf). Following further work on the draft document by Susan, Ed and the Council leadership, a proposed Charter to create a GNSO Standing Selection Committee that will conduct future selections based on agreed, uniform criteria and a documented process was circulated to the Council on 6 February 2017 (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/standing-committee-charter-redlined-07feb17-en.pdf). Here the Council will discuss the draft Charter, with a view toward adopting a final version at its next meeting, in March 2017. 6.1 ? Presentation of the Charter scope (Susan Kawaguchi & Ed Morris) 6.2 ? Council discussion 6.3 ? Next steps Item 7: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Selection of GNSO Nominees for the Second Registration Directory Service (formerly WHOIS) Review Team (10 minutes) The ICANN Bylaws mandate a periodic review to assess the effectiveness of the then-current gTLD registry directory service and whether its implementation meets the legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data. A call for volunteers for the second such Registration Directory Service (RDS) Review (formerly a WHOIS Review) was first published on 28 October 2016, and the deadline for applications was subsequently extended to 20 January 2017 (https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-01-11-en). All ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) are now expected to select their primary and (if appropriate) alternate candidates for the RDS Review Team, according to their own internal processes, from the list of applications received (https://community.icann.org/x/gYfDAw). Under the Bylaws, each SO/AC may select up to 3 primary nominees who will each automatically have a place on the RDS Review Team, and may also nominate a further 4 candidates for consideration for inclusion by the full SO/AC leadership team should there be additional places available on the Review Team due to one or more SO/AC not having selected its full slate of 3 primary nominees. Here the Council will discuss its timeline and expected selection process (including possible use of the proposed GNSO Standing Selection Committee) for the final list of GNSO nominees to the second RDS Review Team. 7.1 ? Status update (GNSO Council Chairs) 7.2 ? Council discussion 7.3 ? Next steps Item 8: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Preparation for Joint Meetings at ICANN58 (15 minutes) As has been customary, the GNSO will be meeting with the ICANN Board, the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) and, for the GNSO Council, also the ccNSO Council at the upcoming ICANN58 meeting in Copenhagen. A list of the topics that had either been discussed at the last ICANN meeting (in Hyderabad in November 2016) or that had already been suggested for Copenhagen was circulated to the Council on [INSERT DATE and LINK]. Here the Council will review and agree on the topics it wishes to discuss with the Board, GAC and ccNSO Council, with a view toward transmitting the lists of topics to these bodies in good time to allow for preparation for and discussion at ICANN58. 8.1 ? Status update (GNSO Council chairs) 8.2 ? Council discussion 8.3 ? Next steps Item 9: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Proposed Council Response to Letter from Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (10 minutes) On 15 December 2016, the Thick WHOIS Implementation Review Team (IRT) sent a letter to the GNSO Council describing a number of privacy law developments and how the IRT has considered them (see https://gnso.icann.org/en/correspondence/irt-to-gnso-council-15dec16-en.pdf) The letter noted that the IRT?s implementation plan has been published for public comment (see https://www.icann.org/public-comments/proposed-implementation-gnso-thick-rdds-whois-transition-2016-10-26-en) and that the IRT does not currently expect the developments in question to affect the timeline for transition to thick WHOIS. The Council discussed the letter at its last meeting on 19 January 2017, at which Councilors Erika Mann and Michele Neylon volunteered to draft a possible response to the IRT from the Council for Council consideration. A draft was circulated to the Council mailing list by Erika on 2 February, which includes a request for an update on the legal review that had been done previously (https://gnso.icann.org/en/drafts/request-review-thick-whois-irt-03feb17-en.pdf). Here the Council will discuss the draft response, with a view toward deciding on its further actions on this topic. 9.1 ? Summary of the draft response (Erika Mann) 9.2 ? Council discussion 9.3 ? Next steps Item 10: COUNCIL DISCUSSION ? Finalizing the GNSO Meeting Schedule for ICANN58 (5 minutes) Based on Council discussions at its last few meetings following ICANN57 and the draft overall ICANN block meeting schedule for ICANN58 (https://meetings.icann.org/sites/default/files/icann58_blocksched_jan17.pdf), ICANN staff updated the draft GNSO Block Schedule that had been circulated previously, to include specific slots for face-to-face meetings of GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) Working Groups, and specific topics for discussion at the various GNSO sessions. The updated draft GNSO Block Schedule (https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/drafts) was circulated on [INSERT DATE]. Here the Council will review the updated draft GNSO Block Schedule, and confirm the topics and timings for the GNSO?s sessions at ICANN58. 10.1 ? Scheduling update (GNSO Council leadership / ICANN staff) 10.2 ? Council discussion 10.3 ? Next steps Item 11: ANY OTHER BUSINESS (5 minutes) 11.1 ? Update on drafting work on new or modified GNSO Bylaws & Operating Procedures ________________________________ Appendix 1: GNSO Council Voting Thresholds (ICANN Bylaws, Article 11, Section 11.3(i)) See https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article11. Appendix 2: GNSO Council Absentee Voting Procedures (GNSO Operating Procedures, Section 4.4) See https://gnso.icann.org/en/council/op-procedures-01sep16-en.pdf. References for Coordinated Universal Time of 12:00 UTC Local time between October and March Winter in the NORTHERN hemisphere ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- California, USA (PST) UTC-8 +0DST 04:00 San Jos?, Costa Rica UTC-6 +0DST 06:00 Iowa City, USA (CST) UTC-6 +0DST 06:00 New York/Washington DC, USA (EST) UTC-5 +0DST 07:00 Buenos Aires, Argentina (ART) UTC-3+0DST 09:00 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (BRST) UTC-2 +0DST 10:00 London, United Kingdom (GMT) UTC+0DST 12:00 Bonn, Germany (CET) UTC+1+0DST 13:00 Cairo, Egypt, (EET) UTC+2 +0DST 14:00 Istanbul, Turkey (TRT) UTC+3+0DST 15:00 Singapore (SGT) UTC +8 +0DST 20:00 Tokyo, Japan (JST) UTC+9+0DST 21:00 Sydney/Hobart, Australia (AEDT) UTC+11+0DST 23:00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- DST starts/ends on last Sunday of March 2017, 2:00 or 3:00 local time (with exceptions) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For other places see http://www.timeanddate.com and http://tinyurl.com/zocj4py Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you very much Kind regards, Nathalie -- Nathalie Peregrine Specialist, SOAC Support (GNSO) Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: nathalie.peregrine at icann.org Skype: nathalie.peregrine.icann Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages[gnso.icann.org] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Thu Feb 9 23:21:01 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:21:01 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee In-Reply-To: References: <0CFD7273-6C67-4387-BCDF-1E39E0096107@toast.net> Message-ID: <1f84c34641bd427d9e55f78625545750@toast.net> Hi Rafik, Thanks for this. Two major issues: 1. One is the usual Constituency versus Stakeholder Group debate. Who should be on the Selection Committee? There was consensus that the GNSO Council Chairs and Vice Chairs should be on the Committee. Then we differed. One view, which was the majority, opined that each Constituency should be represented. This view was supported by Susan Kawaguchi of the BC and Heather Forrest of the IPC. Under this system the CSG would have 3 reps, the NCSG 2, the RySG and RrSG 1 each, along with the Council Chair and Vice Chairs. The reps themselves would be appointed by the Constituencies on the NCPH side. My view was we should honor the GNSO structure and have 1 rep from each of the Stakeholder Groups along with the leadership team. Under this system the CSG, NCSG, RySG and RrSg would each have 1 rep who would serve alongside the leadership team. The full Council has been delegated to decide which option to chose. The SSR was a learning experience for me. This was the most difficult and time consuming activity I've done at ICANN. Not to say I didn't value it - it probably fits my skill set better than other things I've done here and I'm happy with the outcome from a NCSG perspective - but I just don't see a large group being very effective doing the initial vetting. Everyone on the team needs to be committed to doing the substantial and detailed work and I believe that's more likely to happen with a smaller group. For reasons of equitable representation and the utility of smaller groups I certainly would encourage support for the SG option. In fact, I think it is absolutely essential from a NCSG perspective. 2. The initial proposal made by Susan and myself included a rotation system for appointees. This consisted of two parts: 1. For review teams, the top three endorsees should be from three separate SG's (assuming a sufficient number of applications), and 2. For review teams, the SG that did not have candidate endorsed in the top three (which are guaranteed appointments) would, by right, have a candidate endorsed for the next DT in one of the top three places. This was changed by staff into a general diversity requirement and was approved by the Committee at a meeting with 40 per cent attendance. There was conversation about weakening the requirement somewhat in the previous meeting but I did not expect anything like this. I believe this requirement to be fundamental and essential. NCSG candidates often have skill sets a bit different than others. In the SSR2 RT the GNSO endorsed James as a guaranteed SSR2 member and Naveed as someone we would propose for further consideration. If we strictly applied the skill set contained in the Call for Application neither would have been selected. In fact, staff included neither of our candidates in their top seven ranking. Both, IMHO, would be excellent SSR2 members but James was perceived to lack specific desirable educational attributes and Naveed, a man with impeccable academic qualifications, had no direct experience in "corporate security". We're the NCSG. Many of our members lack corporate anything. If that, and other requirements favouring industry professionals, are going to be a strict requirements for other RT's and the SG rotation is eliminated our Members may have some difficulty being selected. I believe a strong rotation is in the interest of both the NCSG and the GNSO. I'll be very happy to talk about all of this on the call tomorrow. I believe in an inclusive GNSO, one that recognises the diversity of the SO and guarantees all a place at the table for all SG's on these important RT's. Susan and I have agreed to meet in Reykjavik with the goal of jointly drafting language that would reinstate in some form the rotation concept, and posting it to the Council list prior to the Council meeting on the 16th, so the matter may be considered by the entire Council. Kind Regards, Ed Morris ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 11:54 AM To: "Edward Morris" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee Dear Ed, Thanks for sharing this and raising your concerns. I think the selection process is definitely a topic for discussion at the policy call. can you list quickly the concerns you have prior to the call? I think some changes are editorial but I saw that several paragraphs on page 6 and 7 were removed which are related to decision making. Best, Rafik 2017-02-07 13:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : Hi everybody, I hope we can discuss this on our policy committee call later this week and in other meetings before our February 16th Council call. The Standing Selection Committee met tonight in reduced fashion: due to technical problems and conflicting commitments only two of the five team members attended the entire call. Changes, based upon staff recommendations, have been made to the initial proposal and I don't believe these changes are in the interest of the NCSG. Hopefully we'll have time to talk about things and come out with a common position going forward. Overall I think this is a good proposal but we do have work to do on the full Council. I look forward to discussing things with everyone, particularly my fellow Councillors, on Friday. Best, Ed Morris Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Susan Kawaguchi Date: 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT To: GNSO Council List Subject: [council] Standing Selection Committee Hello All, Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing Selection Committee. This committee would be composed of councilors to select candidates for review teams and other positions. We will discuss next week at the council meeting. Best regards, Susan _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 9 23:30:27 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:30:27 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee In-Reply-To: <1f84c34641bd427d9e55f78625545750@toast.net> References: <0CFD7273-6C67-4387-BCDF-1E39E0096107@toast.net> <1f84c34641bd427d9e55f78625545750@toast.net> Message-ID: <7f6fe520-3386-85b2-dc1a-4516d1d85e28@mail.utoronto.ca> Perhaps one way to slice this pie would be to have each SG send one, and formally have each of the constituencies have a rotating rep on the cttee....that way CSG have a mini board of 3 reps, and they fight it out amongst themselves as to which rep goes forward for each selection. It aint perfect, but neither is our structure, and I agree with Ed, we cannot have the CSG having 3 votes when the Rrsg only has one.... Stephanie On 2017-02-09 16:21, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi Rafik, > Thanks for this. Two major issues: > 1. One is the usual Constituency versus Stakeholder Group debate. > Who should be on the Selection Committee? There was consensus that the > GNSO Council Chairs and Vice Chairs should be on the Committee. Then > we differed. > One view, which was the majority, opined that each Constituency should > be represented. This view was supported by Susan Kawaguchi of the BC > and Heather Forrest of the IPC. Under this system the CSG would have 3 > reps, the NCSG 2, the RySG and RrSG 1 each, along with the Council > Chair and Vice Chairs. The reps themselves would be appointed by the > Constituencies on the NCPH side. > My view was we should honor the GNSO structure and have 1 rep from > each of the Stakeholder Groups along with the leadership team. Under > this system the CSG, NCSG, RySG and RrSg would each have 1 rep who > would serve alongside the leadership team. > The full Council has been delegated to decide which option to chose. > The SSR was a learning experience for me. This was the most difficult > and time consuming activity I've done at ICANN. Not to say I didn't > value it - it probably fits my skill set better than other things I've > done here and I'm happy with the outcome from a NCSG perspective - but > I just don't see a large group being very effective doing the initial > vetting. Everyone on the team needs to be committed to doing the > substantial and detailed work and I believe that's more likely to > happen with a smaller group. > For reasons of equitable representation and the utility of smaller > groups I certainly would encourage support for the SG option. In fact, > I think it is absolutely essential from a NCSG perspective. > 2. The initial proposal made by Susan and myself included a rotation > system for appointees. This consisted of two parts: > 1. For review teams, the top three endorsees should be from three > separate SG's (assuming a sufficient number of applications), and > 2. For review teams, the SG that did not have candidate endorsed in > the top three (which are guaranteed appointments) would, by right, > have a candidate endorsed for the next DT in one of the top three places. > This was changed by staff into a general diversity requirement and was > approved by the Committee at a meeting with 40 per cent attendance. > There was conversation about weakening the requirement somewhat in the > previous meeting but I did not expect anything like this. > I believe this requirement to be fundamental and essential. NCSG > candidates often have skill sets a bit different than others. In the > SSR2 RT the GNSO endorsed James as a guaranteed SSR2 member and Naveed > as someone we would propose for further consideration. If we strictly > applied the skill set contained in the Call for Application neither > would have been selected. > In fact, staff included neither of our candidates in their top seven > ranking. Both, IMHO, would be excellent SSR2 members but James was > perceived to lack specific desirable educational attributes and > Naveed, a man with impeccable academic qualifications, had no direct > experience in "corporate security". > We're the NCSG. Many of our members lack corporate anything. If that, > and other requirements favouring industry professionals, are going to > be a strict requirements for other RT's and the SG rotation is > eliminated our Members may have some difficulty being selected. I > believe a strong rotation is in the interest of both the NCSG and the > GNSO. > I'll be very happy to talk about all of this on the call tomorrow. I > believe in an inclusive GNSO, one that recognises the diversity of the > SO and guarantees all a place at the table for all SG's on these > important RT's. > Susan and I have agreed to meet in Reykjavik with the goal of jointly > drafting language that would reinstate in some form the rotation > concept, and posting it to the Council list prior to the > Council meeting on the 16th, so the matter may be considered by the > entire Council. > Kind Regards, > Ed Morris > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 11:54 AM > *To*: "Edward Morris" > *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee > Dear Ed, > Thanks for sharing this and raising your concerns. I think the > selection process is definitely a topic for discussion at the policy call. > can you list quickly the concerns you have prior to the call? I think > some changes are editorial but I saw that several paragraphs on page 6 > and 7 were removed which are related to decision making. > Best, > Rafik > 2017-02-07 13:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >: > > Hi everybody, > I hope we can discuss this on our policy committee call later this > week and in other meetings before our February 16th Council call. > The Standing Selection Committee met tonight in reduced fashion: > due to technical problems and conflicting commitments only two of > the five team members attended the entire call. Changes, based > upon staff recommendations, have been made to the initial proposal > and I don't believe these changes are in the interest of the NCSG. > Hopefully we'll have time to talk about things and come out with a > common position going forward. > Overall I think this is a good proposal but we do have work to do > on the full Council. I look forward to discussing things with > everyone, particularly my fellow Councillors, on Friday. > Best, > Ed Morris > > Sent from my iPhone > > Begin forwarded message: >> *From:* Susan Kawaguchi > >> *Date:* 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT >> *To:* GNSO Council List > > >> *Subject:* *[council] Standing Selection Committee* >> >> Hello All, >> >> Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing >> Selection Committee. This committee would be composed of >> councilors to select candidates for review teams and other positions. >> >> We will discuss next week at the council meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Susan >> >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Thu Feb 9 23:39:27 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 16:39:27 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer Message-ID: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Hi everybody, Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.1 states that "The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers", Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.6 states that "Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote", Whereas the NCSG-PC includes many former Councillors and past NCSG leaders on the mailing list, and elsewhere, with observer status, I propose that we add Farzaneh Badii, current Chair of the NCUC, to the PC list as an observer. Such an appointment will strengthen the ties between the PC and the NCUC and will benefit all concerned. If you support adding Farzi to the PC as an Observer please indicate same on list so she can be added to he mailing list. Thank you for your consideration, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 10 00:31:38 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2017 17:31:38 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: I write in full support of Farzaneh Badii being granted observer status of the NCSG Policy Committee. Respectfully submitted, Ayden F?rdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer Local Time: 9 February 2017 9:39 PM UTC Time: 9 February 2017 21:39 From: egmorris1 at toast.net To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is farzaneh badii Hi everybody, Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.1 states that "The membership of the NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers", Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.6 states that "Any observer to the NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus process or vote", Whereas the NCSG-PC includes many former Councillors and past NCSG leaders on the mailing list, and elsewhere, with observer status, I propose that we add Farzaneh Badii, current Chair of the NCUC, to the PC list as an observer. Such an appointment will strengthen the ties between the PC and the NCUC and will benefit all concerned. If you support adding Farzi to the PC as an Observer please indicate same on list so she can be added to he mailing list. Thank you for your consideration, Ed Morris -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 01:24:45 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 08:24:45 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, I am fine with adding Farzaneh as an observer to NCSG PC list. @PC members, please indicate your support or objection by Monday 13th Feb, after that we can add Farzaneh to the list. Best, Rafik 2017-02-10 6:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > > Hi everybody, > > Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.1 states that "The membership of the NCSG-PC may > invite others to participate as observers", > > Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.6 states that "Any observer to the NCSG-PC will > have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus > process or vote", > > Whereas the NCSG-PC includes many former Councillors and past NCSG leaders > on the mailing list, and elsewhere, with observer status, > > I propose that we add Farzaneh Badii, current Chair of the NCUC, to the PC > list as an observer. Such an appointment will strengthen the ties between > the PC and the NCUC and will benefit all concerned. > > If you support adding Farzi to the PC as an Observer please indicate same > on list so she can be added to he mailing list. > > Thank you for your consideration, > > Ed Morris > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Feb 10 01:35:54 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 23:35:54 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed - all the whereases are bit over the top. Of course I support. Matthew On 09/02/2017 21:39, Edward Morris wrote: > Hi everybody, > Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.1 states that "The membership of the NCSG-PC > may invite others to participate as observers", > Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.6 states that "Any observer to the NCSG-PC > will have full participation rights except will not be counted in any > consensus process or vote", > Whereas the NCSG-PC includes many former Councillors and past NCSG > leaders on the mailing list, and elsewhere, with observer status, > I propose that we add Farzaneh Badii, current Chair of the NCUC, to > the PC list as an observer. Such an appointment will strengthen the > ties between the PC and the NCUC and will benefit all concerned. > If you support adding Farzi to the PC as an Observer please indicate > same on list so she can be added to he mailing list. > Thank you for your consideration, > Ed Morris > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri Feb 10 01:52:09 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 18:52:09 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: Matt, Hi Ed - all the whereases are bit over the top. It is a good way of drawing people's attention to the NCSG Charter ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf ), particularly for the newer members of the PC who may never have looked at it before. Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Fri Feb 10 02:03:07 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:03:07 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: Was trying a little late night humor - not my strong suit. Best! Matthew On 09/02/2017 23:52, Edward Morris wrote: > Matt, > > /Hi Ed - all the whereases are bit over the top. / > > It is a good way of drawing people's attention to the NCSG Charter > ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf > ), particularly for the newer members of the PC who may never have > looked at it before. > > Ed > -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri Feb 10 02:11:28 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 00:11:28 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: <28F64EEC-3F59-4EB6-A90B-DCF4A23A1EF7@toast.net> Whereas your attempt at humour...:) No big. I've been in England on and off for twenty years. I didn't even understand Monty Python. My bad. Safe travels Matt, Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:03, matthew shears wrote: > > Was trying a little late night humor - not my strong suit. > > Best! > > Matthew > >> On 09/02/2017 23:52, Edward Morris wrote: >> Matt, >> >> Hi Ed - all the whereases are bit over the top. >> >> >> >> It is a good way of drawing people's attention to the NCSG Charter ( https://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-charter-05may11-en.pdf ), particularly for the newer members of the PC who may never have looked at it before. >> >> >> >> Ed >> > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 10 06:10:23 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 13:10:23 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee In-Reply-To: <1f84c34641bd427d9e55f78625545750@toast.net> References: <0CFD7273-6C67-4387-BCDF-1E39E0096107@toast.net> <1f84c34641bd427d9e55f78625545750@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, thanks for this, it will help us for the discussion in today call and what will be our position in the council call next week. I want also to highlight that a selection process is coming soon with the whois/RDS RT which is an agenda item for GNSO call. Best, Rafik 2017-02-10 6:21 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi Rafik, > > Thanks for this. Two major issues: > > 1. One is the usual Constituency versus Stakeholder Group debate. > > Who should be on the Selection Committee? There was consensus that the > GNSO Council Chairs and Vice Chairs should be on the Committee. Then we > differed. > > One view, which was the majority, opined that each Constituency should be > represented. This view was supported by Susan Kawaguchi of the BC and > Heather Forrest of the IPC. Under this system the CSG would have 3 reps, > the NCSG 2, the RySG and RrSG 1 each, along with the Council Chair and Vice > Chairs. The reps themselves would be appointed by the Constituencies on the > NCPH side. > > My view was we should honor the GNSO structure and have 1 rep from each of > the Stakeholder Groups along with the leadership team. Under this system > the CSG, NCSG, RySG and RrSg would each have 1 rep who would serve > alongside the leadership team. > > The full Council has been delegated to decide which option to chose. > > The SSR was a learning experience for me. This was the most difficult and > time consuming activity I've done at ICANN. Not to say I didn't value it - > it probably fits my skill set better than other things I've done here and > I'm happy with the outcome from a NCSG perspective - but I just don't see a > large group being very effective doing the initial vetting. Everyone on the > team needs to be committed to doing the substantial and detailed work and I > believe that's more likely to happen with a smaller group. > > For reasons of equitable representation and the utility of smaller groups > I certainly would encourage support for the SG option. In fact, I think it > is absolutely essential from a NCSG perspective. > > 2. The initial proposal made by Susan and myself included a rotation > system for appointees. This consisted of two parts: > > 1. For review teams, the top three endorsees should be from three separate > SG's (assuming a sufficient number of applications), and > > 2. For review teams, the SG that did not have candidate endorsed in the > top three (which are guaranteed appointments) would, by right, have a > candidate endorsed for the next DT in one of the top three places. > > This was changed by staff into a general diversity requirement and was > approved by the Committee at a meeting with 40 per cent attendance. There > was conversation about weakening the requirement somewhat in the previous > meeting but I did not expect anything like this. > > I believe this requirement to be fundamental and essential. NCSG > candidates often have skill sets a bit different than others. In the SSR2 > RT the GNSO endorsed James as a guaranteed SSR2 member and Naveed as > someone we would propose for further consideration. If we strictly applied > the skill set contained in the Call for Application neither would have been > selected. > > In fact, staff included neither of our candidates in their top seven > ranking. Both, IMHO, would be excellent SSR2 members but James was > perceived to lack specific desirable educational attributes and Naveed, a > man with impeccable academic qualifications, had no direct experience in > "corporate security". > > We're the NCSG. Many of our members lack corporate anything. If that, and > other requirements favouring industry professionals, are going to be a > strict requirements for other RT's and the SG rotation is eliminated our > Members may have some difficulty being selected. I believe a strong > rotation is in the interest of both the NCSG and the GNSO. > > I'll be very happy to talk about all of this on the call tomorrow. I > believe in an inclusive GNSO, one that recognises the diversity of the SO > and guarantees all a place at the table for all SG's on these important > RT's. > > Susan and I have agreed to meet in Reykjavik with the goal of jointly > drafting language that would reinstate in some form the rotation concept, > and posting it to the Council list prior to the Council meeting on the > 16th, so the matter may be considered by the entire Council. > > Kind Regards, > > Ed Morris > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Wednesday, February 8, 2017 11:54 AM > *To*: "Edward Morris" > *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] Standing Selection Committee > > Dear Ed, > > Thanks for sharing this and raising your concerns. I think the selection > process is definitely a topic for discussion at the policy call. > can you list quickly the concerns you have prior to the call? I think some > changes are editorial but I saw that several paragraphs on page 6 and 7 > were removed which are related to decision making. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-07 13:20 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> I hope we can discuss this on our policy committee call later this week >> and in other meetings before our February 16th Council call. >> >> The Standing Selection Committee met tonight in reduced fashion: due to >> technical problems and conflicting commitments only two of the five team >> members attended the entire call. Changes, based upon staff >> recommendations, have been made to the initial proposal and I don't believe >> these changes are in the interest of the NCSG. Hopefully we'll have time to >> talk about things and come out with a common position going forward. >> >> Overall I think this is a good proposal but we do have work to do on the >> full Council. I look forward to discussing things with everyone, >> particularly my fellow Councillors, on Friday. >> >> Best, >> >> Ed Morris >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> *From:* Susan Kawaguchi >> *Date:* 7 February 2017 at 03:17:30 GMT >> *To:* GNSO Council List >> *Subject:* *[council] Standing Selection Committee* >> >> >> >> >> Hello All, >> >> >> >> Please see the attached draft charter for the proposed Standing Selection >> Committee. This committee would be composed of councilors to select >> candidates for review teams and other positions. >> >> >> >> We will discuss next week at the council meeting. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> Susan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> council mailing list >> council at gnso.icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Feb 10 10:30:37 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 10:30:37 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: <20170210083037.GD3575@tehanu.it.jyu.fi> +1 On Feb 09 23:35, matthew shears (mshears at cdt.org) wrote: > Hi Ed - all the whereases are bit over the top. > > Of course I support. > > Matthew > > > On 09/02/2017 21:39, Edward Morris wrote: > >Hi everybody, > >Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.1 states that "The membership of the > >NCSG-PC may invite others to participate as observers", > >Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.6 states that "Any observer to the > >NCSG-PC will have full participation rights except will not be > >counted in any consensus process or vote", > >Whereas the NCSG-PC includes many former Councillors and past NCSG > >leaders on the mailing list, and elsewhere, with observer status, > >I propose that we add Farzaneh Badii, current Chair of the NCUC, > >to the PC list as an observer. Such an appointment will strengthen > >the ties between the PC and the NCUC and will benefit all > >concerned. > >If you support adding Farzi to the PC as an Observer please > >indicate same on list so she can be added to he mailing list. > >Thank you for your consideration, > >Ed Morris > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >NCSG-PC mailing list > >NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Sat Feb 11 08:55:44 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2017 15:55:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR DISCUSSION: Preparation for Joint Meetings at ICANN58 Message-ID: Hi everyone, an item of discussion for NCSG, we should review the proposed topics and see what we can suggest for the joint meetings. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mary Wong Date: 2017-02-11 3:17 GMT+09:00 Subject: [council] FOR DISCUSSION: Preparation for Joint Meetings at ICANN58 To: "council at gnso.icann.org" Dear Councilors, On behalf of the GNSO Council chairs, staff is circulating the list of topics below to kick-start a discussion on the list of topics that the GNSO Council and community wish to propose for the upcoming joint meetings with the Board, GAC and ccNSO Council in Copenhagen. *For the joint meeting with the GAC:* The following topics were raised as possibilities on the most recent GAC-GNSO leadership call - ? New gTLD subsequent rounds (focus on other topics that are not part of the facilitated discussions). ? Adopting or discussing the implementation plan of the GAC-GNSO CG Final Report. ? More substantive discussions on topics within a PDP for which there are different opinions in the community - for example, discussion on geographic names in the context of new gTLDs so that the input from proposed discussion in Johannesburg can feed into the PDP. ? The PDP-generated workload, opportunities for prioritization, slowing the pace to allow stakeholders more space to engage effectively. (Note: The GAC and GNSO leadership teams also agreed that the meeting should focus on generating more discussion, using fewer slides and minimizing one-way presentations. *For the joint meeting with the Board:* The following topics were discussed in Hyderabad - ? What do we, the Board and ICANN the organization, need to do to make the transition effective? ? Discussion regarding the differences - in substance but also procedure ? between the GAC advice and GNSO policy relating to IGO and Red Cross protections ? Progress on implementation of GNSO Review recommendations *For the joint meeting with the ccNSO Council:* This was the agenda for Hyderabad: ? Update on ongoing joint ccNSO-GNSO CCWG efforts a. CWG Principles (Becky Burr) (staff suggests that this can be removed as community work on this has been completed b. CWG to develop a framework for the use of Country and Territory names as TLDs c. CWG Internet Governance d. CCWG new gTLD Auction Proceeds ? Non-CCWG Hot topics: a. Future scheduling of the ICANN meetings: High Interest Sessions, block schedule. Ensuring broad participation in HIT sessions. Specified time on schedule? b. Implementation of new Bylaws Please review the above list and comment on whether you wish to support their inclusion for ICANN58 or have different topics to suggest. Staff will note here that the topic of CCWG work (relative to policy development) has cropped up in a number of recent discussions, so this may be a topic for consideration as well. Thanks and cheers Mary _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 14 02:38:32 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 09:38:32 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Please Respond - Request to add an Observer In-Reply-To: References: <7c2d4659ec9f4f9f8b2d9e661af0bea1@toast.net> Message-ID: hi, with no objection raised and noticing support from different PC members, I think we can consider that adding Farzaneh as an observer to the list is approved. @Tapani please add Farzaneh to PC list. Best, Rafik 2017-02-10 8:24 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Ed, > > I am fine with adding Farzaneh as an observer to NCSG PC list. > @PC members, please indicate your support or objection by Monday 13th Feb, > after that we can add Farzaneh to the list. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-02-10 6:39 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.1 states that "The membership of the NCSG-PC >> may invite others to participate as observers", >> >> Whereas NCSG Charter ?2.5.6 states that "Any observer to the NCSG-PC will >> have full participation rights except will not be counted in any consensus >> process or vote", >> >> Whereas the NCSG-PC includes many former Councillors and past NCSG >> leaders on the mailing list, and elsewhere, with observer status, >> >> I propose that we add Farzaneh Badii, current Chair of the NCUC, to the >> PC list as an observer. Such an appointment will strengthen the ties >> between the PC and the NCUC and will benefit all concerned. >> >> If you support adding Farzi to the PC as an Observer please indicate same >> on list so she can be added to he mailing list. >> >> Thank you for your consideration, >> >> Ed Morris >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Tue Feb 14 20:46:26 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 18:46:26 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline Message-ID: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Dear PC members, As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, but it really needs to be decided within a few days. I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it in the time we have. I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly desirable. Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. -- Tapani Tarvainen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 159361 bytes Desc: not available URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 14 20:57:42 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 13:57:42 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: My preference would be for a special meeting of the GNSO Council, which would potentially give us another two weeks to use as part of the candidate selection process. However, I realise this would be a burden on all of the GNSO Councillors. In any case, two days is not realistic for interviewing all of the candidates. Ayden F?rdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline Local Time: 14 February 2017 6:46 PM UTC Time: 14 February 2017 18:46 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Dear PC members, As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, but it really needs to be decided within a few days. I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it in the time we have. I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly desirable. Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. -- Tapani Tarvainen _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 14 21:21:35 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 14:21:35 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <61bab127-9315-e812-6414-897406888fa9@mail.utoronto.ca> I agree Stephanie Perrin On 2017-02-14 13:57, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > My preference would be for a special meeting of the GNSO Council, > which would potentially give us another two weeks to use as part of > the candidate selection process. However, I realise this would be a > burden on all of the GNSO Councillors. > > In any case, two days is not realistic for interviewing all of the > candidates. > > Ayden F?rdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline >> Local Time: 14 February 2017 6:46 PM >> UTC Time: 14 February 2017 18:46 >> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> Dear PC members, >> >> As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the >> timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. >> >> We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, >> but it really needs to be decided within a few days. >> >> I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing >> there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: >> two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. >> Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it >> in the time we have. >> >> I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is >> possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to >> get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly >> desirable. >> >> Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide >> what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 05:43:31 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 22:43:31 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> 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. Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 From: Greg Shatan To: KIMPIAN Peter CC: Victoria Sheckler , James M. Bladel , kathy at kathykleiman.com , donna.austin at neustar.biz , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au , Stephanie Perrin , KWASNY Sophie , Wilson, Christopher , Tony Holmes All, /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 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. 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 _not_ 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). 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. I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: Vicky wrote: I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. ? ?Peter responded: 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? ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: ? Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: * 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??this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you suggested are much better. ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel representing multiple perspectives.? ? * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum.?I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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."?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). 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. * 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.?I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments expressed above. ?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. ?Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin 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.)? This description was provided by Peter: 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. Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no success. ? 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. 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 ?P? suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak under these two slots). ?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. 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).? 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: 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. Vicky responded: 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, Greg: We still need that perspective. ?Peter responded with COE's goals: 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.? 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.? ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? 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] 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. ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would you propose?" (responding to my view that we n?eeded a panel that represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote: 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. 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." ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that /The current state of preparation would imply the following meetings/-/a session with the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch with the Board,/-/community wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ / / ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/? community groups) should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next week.?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? 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). 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.... 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. Best Regards, Greg Shatan President Intellectual Property Constituency -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 06:09:51 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:09:51 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > 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. > > Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. > > Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 > From: Greg Shatan > To: KIMPIAN Peter > CC: Victoria Sheckler , James M. > Bladel , kathy at kathykleiman.com > , > donna.austin at neustar.biz > , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au > , Stephanie > Perrin > , KWASNY Sophie > , Wilson, Christopher > , Tony Holmes > > > All, > > *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 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. > > 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 *not* 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). > > 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. > > I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread > since I last had an opportunity to respond: > > Vicky wrote: > I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will > represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. > > ? > ?Peter responded: > 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? > > ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and perhaps misses a > fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization > and *not* 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). > > ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: > ? > >> >> >> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please >> accept my apologies for the confusion. >> >> >> >> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >> >> >> >> * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that >> those you suggested are much better. >> > > ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel > representing multiple perspectives.? > >> ? >> > >> >> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. ? >> I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). >> > > 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. > >> >> >> * 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. ? I really think >> that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because >> of the arguments expressed above. >> >> >> > ?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. > > ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, >> Jim Galvin >> > > 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.)? > > This description was provided by Peter: > >> >> >> 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. >> > > Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to > participate and/or to have participation from the > enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no > success. > ? > >> 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. >> >> >> >> 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 >> ?P? >> suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak >> under these two slots). >> > > ?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. > > 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).? > >> >> > 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: 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. > > Vicky responded: > > 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, > > > Greg: We still need that perspective. > > ?Peter responded with COE's goals: > > 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.? > > 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.? > > ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? > > 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] > > 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. > > ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would you propose?" > (responding to my view that we n?eeded a panel that represented multiple > perspectives), Peter wrote: > > 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. > > 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." > >> >> >> ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more > things. One was Peter's suggestion that *The current state of > preparation would imply the following meetings*- *a session with the > GAC plenary,*- *a working lunch with the Board,*- *community > wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.* > - *alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council > and ccNSO Council *- *bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC* > > ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not > merely with the more *simpatico*? community groups) should be considered, > to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't > bite). > > Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: > Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions > for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? > > 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). > > 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.... > > 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. > > Best Regards, > > Greg Shatan > President > Intellectual Property Constituency > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 06:23:05 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:23:05 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> What happened is this: * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel * Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had to, these are busy guys) * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) * Side meetings have apparently been arranged * 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 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. cheers Steph On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community > Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? > > 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? > > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > 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. > > Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. > > Steph > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 > From: Greg Shatan > > To: KIMPIAN Peter > > CC: Victoria Sheckler > , James M. Bladel > , kathy at kathykleiman.com > > , donna.austin at neustar.biz > > , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au > > , Stephanie Perrin > > , KWASNY Sophie > , Wilson, > Christopher , Tony > Holmes > > > > > All, > > /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 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. > > 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 > _not_ 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). > > 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. > > I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this > thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: > > Vicky wrote: > I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist > will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. > > ? > ?Peter responded: > 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? > > ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and perhaps > misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a > multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). > > ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: > ? > > > Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so > please accept my apologies for the confusion. > > Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: > > * 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??this expression was > used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you > suggested are much better. > > > ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the > panel representing multiple perspectives.? > > ? > > * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute > minimum.?I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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."?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). > > > 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. > > * 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.?I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH > should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments > expressed above. > > ?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. > > ?Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas > Schneider, Jim Galvin > > > 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.)? > > This description was provided by Peter: > > 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. > > > Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have been > seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the > enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far > with no success. > ? > > 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. > > 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 > > ?P? > suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited > to speak under these two slots). > > > ?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. > > 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).? > > 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: 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. > > Vicky responded: > > 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, > > > Greg: We still need that perspective. > > ?Peter responded with COE's goals: > > 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.? > > 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.? > > ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? > > 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] > > 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. > > ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would you > propose?" (responding to my view that we n?eeded a panel that > represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote: > > 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. > > 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." > > ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple > more things. One was Peter's suggestion that /The current state > of preparation would imply the following meetings/-/a session with > the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch with the Board,/-/community > wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest > Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO > Council and ccNSO Council /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC > and ALAC/ > / > / > ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and > not merely with the more /simpatico/? community groups) should be > considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a > meeting (and we don't bite). > > Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: > Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional > suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next > week.?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? > > 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). > > 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.... > > 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. > > Best Regards, > > Greg Shatan > President > Intellectual Property Constituency > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From farzaneh.badii at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 06:59:03 2017 From: farzaneh.badii at gmail.com (farzaneh badii) Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 23:59:03 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: > What happened is this: > > - GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done > - GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT > with this panel > - Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had > to, these are busy guys) > - IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria > sheckler their person on this) > - Side meetings have apparently been arranged > - 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 > > 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. > > cheers Steph > > > > On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion > with Data Protection Commissioners? > > 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? > > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> 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. >> >> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >> >> Steph >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >> From: Greg Shatan >> To: KIMPIAN Peter >> CC: Victoria Sheckler , James >> M. Bladel , >> kathy at kathykleiman.com , >> donna.austin at neustar.biz >> , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >> , Stephanie >> Perrin >> , KWASNY Sophie >> , Wilson, Christopher >> , Tony Holmes >> >> >> All, >> >> *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 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. >> >> 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 *not* 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). >> >> 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. >> >> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread >> since I last had an opportunity to respond: >> >> Vicky wrote: >> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will >> represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. >> >> ? >> ?Peter responded: >> 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? >> >> ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and perhaps misses a >> fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization >> and *not* 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). >> >> ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >> ? >> >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please >>> accept my apologies for the confusion. >>> >>> >>> >>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>> >>> >>> >>> * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only >>> agree that those you suggested are much better. >>> >> >> ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel >> representing multiple perspectives.? >> >>> ? >>> >> >>> >>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. ? >>> I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). >>> >> >> 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. >> >>> >>> >>> * 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. ? I really think >>> that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because >>> of the arguments expressed above. >>> >>> >>> >> ?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. >> >> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, >>> Jim Galvin >>> >> >> 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.)? >> >> This description was provided by Peter: >> >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to >> participate and/or to have participation from the >> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no >> success. >> ? >> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> 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 >>> ?P? >>> suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak >>> under these two slots). >>> >> >> ?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. >> >> 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).? >> >>> >>> >> 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: 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. >> >> Vicky responded: >> >> 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, >> >> >> Greg: We still need that perspective. >> >> ?Peter responded with COE's goals: >> >> 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.? >> >> 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.? >> >> ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? >> >> 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] >> >> 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. >> >> ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would you propose?" >> (responding to my view that we n?eeded a panel that represented multiple >> perspectives), Peter wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> 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." >> >>> >>> >>> ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more >> things. One was Peter's suggestion that *The current state of >> preparation would imply the following meetings*- *a session with >> the GAC plenary,*- *a working lunch with the Board,*- *community >> wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.* >> - *alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council >> and ccNSO Council *- *bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC* >> >> ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not >> merely with the more *simpatico*? community groups) should be >> considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting >> (and we don't bite). >> >> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >> Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions >> for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? >> >> 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). >> >> 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.... >> >> 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. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Greg Shatan >> President >> Intellectual Property Constituency >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 07:12:56 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 00:12:56 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: 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 On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin > > wrote: > > What happened is this: > > * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done > * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a > lapsed HIT with this panel > * Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference > (they had to, these are busy guys) > * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria > sheckler their person on this) > * Side meetings have apparently been arranged > * 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 > > 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. > > cheers Steph > > > > On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community >> Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? >> >> 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? >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >> >> Steph >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >> From: Greg Shatan >> >> To: KIMPIAN Peter >> >> CC: Victoria Sheckler >> , James M. Bladel >> , >> kathy at kathykleiman.com >> , >> donna.austin at neustar.biz >> , >> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >> >> >> , Stephanie Perrin >> >> , KWASNY Sophie >> , >> Wilson, Christopher >> , Tony Holmes >> >> >> >> >> >> All, >> >> /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 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. >> >> 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 >> _not_ 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). >> >> 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. >> >> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on >> this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: >> >> Vicky wrote: >> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which >> panelist will represent public safety / transparency / >> enforcement concerns. >> >> ? >> ?Peter responded: >> 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? >> >> ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and perhaps >> misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a >> multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). >> >> ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >> ? >> >> >> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, >> so please accept my apologies for the confusion. >> >> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >> >> * 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??this expression >> was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those >> you suggested are much better. >> >> >> ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on >> the panel representing multiple perspectives.? >> >> ? >> >> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an >> absolute minimum.?I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). >> 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."?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). >> >> >> 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. >> >> * 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.?I really think that if >> CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only >> because of the arguments expressed above. >> >> ?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. >> >> ?Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, >> Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >> >> >> 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.)? >> >> This description was provided by Peter: >> >> 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. >> >> >> Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have been >> seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the >> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So >> far with no success. >> ? >> >> 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. >> >> 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 >> >> ?P? >> suggested that the chair of these communities could be >> invited to speak under these two slots). >> >> >> ?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. >> >> 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).? >> >> 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: 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. >> >> Vicky responded: >> >> 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, >> >> >> Greg: We still need that perspective. >> >> ?Peter responded with COE's goals: >> >> 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.? >> >> 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.? >> >> ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? >> >> 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] >> >> 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. >> >> ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would you >> propose?" (responding to my view that we n?eeded a panel that >> represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote: >> >> 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. >> >> 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." >> >> ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a >> couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that /The >> current state of preparation would imply the following >> meetings/-/a session with the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch >> with the Board,/-/community wide afternoon session possibly >> in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?./-/alternatively or >> subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO >> Council /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >> / >> / >> ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG >> (and not merely with the more /simpatico/? community groups) >> should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored >> to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). >> >> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >> Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional >> suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of >> next week.?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? >> >> 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). >> >> 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.... >> >> 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. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Greg Shatan >> President >> Intellectual Property Constituency >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 07:28:30 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:28:30 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, 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? Best, Rafik 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > 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 > > On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca> wrote: > >> What happened is this: >> >> - GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >> - GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT >> with this panel >> - Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they >> had to, these are busy guys) >> - IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria >> sheckler their person on this) >> - Side meetings have apparently been arranged >> - 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 >> >> 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. >> >> cheers Steph >> >> >> >> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community >> Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? >> >> 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? >> >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>> >>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>> From: Greg Shatan >>> To: KIMPIAN Peter >>> CC: Victoria Sheckler , James >>> M. Bladel , >>> kathy at kathykleiman.com , >>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>> , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>> , Stephanie >>> Perrin >>> , KWASNY Sophie >>> , Wilson, Christopher >>> , Tony Holmes >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> *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 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. >>> >>> 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 *not* 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). >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread >>> since I last had an opportunity to respond: >>> >>> Vicky wrote: >>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will >>> represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. >>> >>> ? >>> ?Peter responded: >>> 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? >>> >>> ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and perhaps misses a >>> fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization >>> and *not* 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). >>> >>> ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>> ? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please >>>> accept my apologies for the confusion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only >>>> agree that those you suggested are much better. >>>> >>> >>> ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel >>> representing multiple perspectives.? >>> >>>> ? >>>> >>> >>>> >>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. >>>> ? I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). >>>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> * 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. ? I really think >>>> that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because >>>> of the arguments expressed above. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> ?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. >>> >>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, >>>> Jim Galvin >>>> >>> >>> 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.)? >>> >>> This description was provided by Peter: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to >>> participate and/or to have participation from the >>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no >>> success. >>> ? >>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> ?P? >>>> suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak >>>> under these two slots). >>>> >>> >>> ?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. >>> >>> 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).? >>> >>>> >>>> >>> 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: 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. >>> >>> Vicky responded: >>> >>> 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, >>> >>> >>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>> >>> ?Peter responded with COE's goals: >>> >>> 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.? >>> >>> 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.? >>> >>> ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? >>> >>> 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] >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would you propose?" >>> (responding to my view that we n?eeded a panel that represented multiple >>> perspectives), Peter wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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." >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more >>> things. One was Peter's suggestion that *The current state of >>> preparation would imply the following meetings*- *a session with >>> the GAC plenary,*- *a working lunch with the Board,*- *community >>> wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.* >>> - *alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council >>> and ccNSO Council *- *bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC* >>> >>> ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not >>> merely with the more *simpatico*? community groups) should be >>> considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting >>> (and we don't bite). >>> >>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions >>> for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> 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.... >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Greg Shatan >>> President >>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 10:35:19 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:35:19 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Unless my memory?s failing me, when we put Markus and Bill Graham on the board we worked out SG positions internally and then went external. It seemed from the RP that folks in Iceland decided to instead have constituencies come out with their own nominations without coordinating first at the SG level. Is that correct? If so, you could then have five different groups putting forward pet nominees, including their own people, which could unnecessarily sow discord intra-SG and would make coming to early consensus within each SG a lot harder. It would open the door to self-referential actions, more complicated negotiations, and a consequent obsession with defining procedural arcana. Could someone closer to the action please clarify how we are proceeding and, if it?s the above model, what the plan is for overcoming potential problems in order to get timely intra-SG agreement? Thanks, Bill > On Feb 14, 2017, at 19:46, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear PC members, > > As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the > timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. > > We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, > but it really needs to be decided within a few days. > > I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing > there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: > two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. > Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it > in the time we have. > > I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is > possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to > get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly desirable. > > Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide > what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > <2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc ************************************************ William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ************************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Wed Feb 15 11:26:42 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:26:42 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: I'm fine with the proposed schedule. I don't know why we need more than two days of interviews (one per SG) and creating a special Council meeting on May 3rd may run into attendance problems as that's a popular holiday week, at least in Europe, due to the May Day holiday. We have several potential rounds of voting so there should be sufficient time to reach a final decision. That said, this is the first time I've participated in this process so am happy to go along with what others feel appropriate. The most important thing, in my view, is just to settle on a plan and timetable, whatever it may be. Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 14 Feb 2017, at 18:58, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > My preference would be for a special meeting of the GNSO Council, which would potentially give us another two weeks to use as part of the candidate selection process. However, I realise this would be a burden on all of the GNSO Councillors. > > In any case, two days is not realistic for interviewing all of the candidates. > > Ayden F?rdeline > linkedin.com/in/ferdeline > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline >> Local Time: 14 February 2017 6:46 PM >> UTC Time: 14 February 2017 18:46 >> From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> Dear PC members, >> >> As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the >> timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. >> >> We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, >> but it really needs to be decided within a few days. >> >> I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing >> there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: >> two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. >> Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it >> in the time we have. >> >> I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is >> possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to >> get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly desirable. >> >> Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide >> what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Wed Feb 15 11:37:12 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:37:12 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi, As far as I can tell, people are tending toward the free for all first round with as many candidates as can be put forward and then a second ballot between the top 2. I was not all that supportive of this at first, but after seeing how it was developing, decided i could live with it. Let a 1000 candidates pull their head up above the sand and then let the two least unpopular (aka top vote getters) go head to head. And if that leaves us without a pick because of the super majority rule and block voting, then leave the seat empty until we find someone we can compromise on. avri On 15-Feb-17 08:35, William Drake wrote: > Hi > > Unless my memory?s failing me, when we put Markus and Bill Graham on > the board we worked out SG positions internally and then went > external. It seemed from the RP that folks in Iceland decided to > instead have constituencies come out with their own nominations > without coordinating first at the SG level. Is that correct? If so, > you could then have five different groups putting forward pet > nominees, including their own people, which could unnecessarily sow > discord intra-SG and would make coming to early consensus within each > SG a lot harder. It would open the door to self-referential actions, > more complicated negotiations, and a consequent obsession with > defining procedural arcana. > > Could someone closer to the action please clarify how we are > proceeding and, if it?s the above model, what the plan is for > overcoming potential problems in order to get timely intra-SG agreement? > > Thanks, > > Bill > >> On Feb 14, 2017, at 19:46, Tapani Tarvainen >> > wrote: >> >> Dear PC members, >> >> As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the >> timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. >> >> We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, >> but it really needs to be decided within a few days. >> >> I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing >> there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: >> two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. >> Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it >> in the time we have. >> >> I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is >> possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to >> get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly >> desirable. >> >> Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide >> what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. >> >> -- >> Tapani Tarvainen >> <2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February >> 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > ************************************************ > William J. Drake > International Fellow & Lecturer > Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ > University of Zurich, Switzerland > william.drake at uzh.ch > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com > (lists), > www.williamdrake.org > ************************************************ > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 11:41:28 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 04:41:28 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <20bff138-6c8a-12a8-ce2b-8e00c1693c05@mail.utoronto.ca> We don't have a time slot yet, he is waiting for me to confirm that we have the slot before he invites them all to the wednesday events. RDS PDP already has a face to face meeting that day, David C would know what time that is....CHuck merely asked if whoever was still around could join that meeting. THere is a call for volunteers to dream up questions for that PDP. I have already volunteered just in case this gets thrown together hastily, but if anyone else wants to volunteer I will step aside. SP On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > 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 > > > On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> 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? >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> What happened is this: >> >> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a >> lapsed HIT with this panel >> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >> * 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 >> >> 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. >> >> cheers Steph >> >> >> >> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- >>> Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>> From: Greg Shatan >>> >>> To: KIMPIAN Peter >>> >>> CC: Victoria Sheckler >>> , James M. Bladel >>> , >>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>> >>> , >>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>> >>> >>> , >>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>> >>> >>> , Stephanie Perrin >>> >>> , KWASNY >>> Sophie >>> , Wilson, Christopher >>> , Tony >>> Holmes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> /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 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. >>> >>> 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 _not_ 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). >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements >>> on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: >>> >>> Vicky wrote: >>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which >>> panelist will represent public safety / transparency / >>> enforcement concerns. >>> >>> ? >>> ?Peter responded: >>> 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? >>> >>> ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and >>> perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that >>> it is a multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). >>> >>> ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>> ? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some >>> point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. >>> >>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>> >>> * 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??this expression was used by ICANN staff but I >>> can only agree that those you suggested are much better. >>> >>> >>> ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated >>> on the panel representing multiple perspectives.? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an >>> absolute minimum.?I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum >>> (!). 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."?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). >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> * 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.?I >>> really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH >>> should also has to have 1 only because of the >>> arguments expressed above. >>> >>> ?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. >>> >>> ?Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, >>> Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>> >>> >>> 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.)? >>> >>> This description was provided by Peter: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have >>> been seeking to participate and/or to have participation >>> from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>> roster. So far with no success. >>> ? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ?P? >>> suggested that the chair of these communities could >>> be invited to speak under these two slots). >>> >>> >>> ?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. >>> >>> 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).? >>> >>> 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: 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. >>> >>> Vicky responded: >>> >>> 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, >>> >>> >>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>> >>> ?Peter responded with COE's goals: >>> >>> 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.? >>> >>> 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.? >>> >>> ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? >>> >>> 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] >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would >>> you propose?" (responding to my view that we n?eeded a >>> panel that represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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." >>> >>> ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just >>> a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that >>> /The current state of preparation would imply the >>> following meetings/-/a session with the GAC plenary,/-/a >>> working lunch with the Board,/-/community wide afternoon >>> session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest >>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting >>> with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council /-/bilateral >>> meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>> / >>> / >>> ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the >>> CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/? community >>> groups) should be considered, to say the least. We >>> would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). >>> >>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>> additional suggestions for consideration for this panel >>> by the end of next week.?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? >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> 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.... >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Greg Shatan >>> President >>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wjdrake at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 11:43:23 2017 From: wjdrake at gmail.com (William Drake) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 10:43:23 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <132BCDC9-E550-4195-B088-E1DB5597E9FF@gmail.com> free for all at house level? sounds like fun, good luck > On Feb 15, 2017, at 10:37, avri doria wrote: > > Hi, > > As far as I can tell, people are tending toward the free for all first > round with as many candidates as can be put forward and then a second > ballot between the top 2. > > I was not all that supportive of this at first, but after seeing how it > was developing, decided i could live with it. Let a 1000 candidates > pull their head up above the sand and then let the two least unpopular > (aka top vote getters) go head to head. And if that leaves us without a > pick because of the super majority rule and block voting, then leave the > seat empty until we find someone we can compromise on. > > avri > > > > On 15-Feb-17 08:35, William Drake wrote: >> Hi >> >> Unless my memory?s failing me, when we put Markus and Bill Graham on >> the board we worked out SG positions internally and then went >> external. It seemed from the RP that folks in Iceland decided to >> instead have constituencies come out with their own nominations >> without coordinating first at the SG level. Is that correct? If so, >> you could then have five different groups putting forward pet >> nominees, including their own people, which could unnecessarily sow >> discord intra-SG and would make coming to early consensus within each >> SG a lot harder. It would open the door to self-referential actions, >> more complicated negotiations, and a consequent obsession with >> defining procedural arcana. >> >> Could someone closer to the action please clarify how we are >> proceeding and, if it?s the above model, what the plan is for >> overcoming potential problems in order to get timely intra-SG agreement? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Bill >> >>> On Feb 14, 2017, at 19:46, Tapani Tarvainen >>> >> wrote: >>> >>> Dear PC members, >>> >>> As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the >>> timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. >>> >>> We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, >>> but it really needs to be decided within a few days. >>> >>> I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing >>> there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: >>> two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. >>> Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it >>> in the time we have. >>> >>> I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is >>> possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to >>> get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly >>> desirable. >>> >>> Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide >>> what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. >>> >>> -- >>> Tapani Tarvainen >>> <2017 Board Seat 14 Election Timeline 13 February >>> 2017.docx>_______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> ************************************************ >> William J. Drake >> International Fellow & Lecturer >> Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ >> University of Zurich, Switzerland >> william.drake at uzh.ch >> > (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com >> > (lists), >> www.williamdrake.org > >> ************************************************ >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc ************************************************ William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ************************************************ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 15 13:01:44 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 20:01:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Board member election process and timeline In-Reply-To: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> References: <20170214184625.fwvxzjiapl524lxj@roller.tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Hi Tapani, wit regard to the timeline: it is possible to have a special council call, happened before for other context but we get to check with council leadership before. I think the timeline can be adjusted around the voting rounds, I don't see why 13 individuals would need more than 1 week or 10 days to cast their ballots, in particular for the first round, same can be applied for the 2nd round. that will give more time for the interviews. for the result report after the final round, I don't see why it need 5 days. is it possible to resend the latest version of the process? Best, Rafik 2017-02-15 3:46 GMT+09:00 Tapani Tarvainen : > Dear PC members, > > As I hope everyone is already aware, we need to agree with CSG on the > timeline and process for NCPH Board member election. > > We had a session today about it here in Reykjav?k without conclusion, > but it really needs to be decided within a few days. > > I'll attach the latest staff proposal. As things stand the only thing > there almost everybody agrees should be changed is the interview time: > two days is too short to ensure all candidates can be interviewed. > Otherwise feeling is that it doesn't really matter much - we can do it > in the time we have. > > I will note that the 10 April deadline there isn't stonehard, it is > possible to have an extra council meeting even on 3 May if need be to > get two extra weeks, but it would obviously not be particularly desirable. > > Comments welcome. While we can't decide this alone, we can decide > what we can accept and then people here can work it out with CSG. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 13:55:50 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:55:50 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... Steph On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > 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 > > > On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> 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? >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >> > > wrote: >> >> What happened is this: >> >> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a >> lapsed HIT with this panel >> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >> * 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 >> >> 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. >> >> cheers Steph >> >> >> >> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- >>> Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>> >>> Steph >>> >>> >>> >>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>> From: Greg Shatan >>> >>> To: KIMPIAN Peter >>> >>> CC: Victoria Sheckler >>> , James M. Bladel >>> , >>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>> >>> , >>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>> >>> >>> , >>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>> >>> >>> , Stephanie Perrin >>> >>> , KWASNY >>> Sophie >>> , Wilson, Christopher >>> , Tony >>> Holmes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> All, >>> >>> /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 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. >>> >>> 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 _not_ 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). >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements >>> on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: >>> >>> Vicky wrote: >>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which >>> panelist will represent public safety / transparency / >>> enforcement concerns. >>> >>> ? >>> ?Peter responded: >>> 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? >>> >>> ?Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question? and >>> perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that >>> it is a multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). >>> >>> ??Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>> ? >>> >>> >>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some >>> point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. >>> >>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>> >>> * 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??this expression was used by ICANN staff but I >>> can only agree that those you suggested are much better. >>> >>> >>> ?Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated >>> on the panel representing multiple perspectives.? >>> >>> ? >>> >>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an >>> absolute minimum.?I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum >>> (!). 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."?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). >>> >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> * 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.?I >>> really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH >>> should also has to have 1 only because of the >>> arguments expressed above. >>> >>> ?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. >>> >>> ?Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, >>> Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>> >>> >>> 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.)? >>> >>> This description was provided by Peter: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> Greg: ?We are an interested ICANN community and we have >>> been seeking to participate and/or to have participation >>> from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>> roster. So far with no success. >>> ? >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> ?P? >>> suggested that the chair of these communities could >>> be invited to speak under these two slots). >>> >>> >>> ?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. >>> >>> 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).? >>> >>> 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: 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. >>> >>> Vicky responded: >>> >>> 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, >>> >>> >>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>> >>> ?Peter responded with COE's goals: >>> >>> 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.? >>> >>> 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.? >>> >>> ?Prior to that Peter wrote: ? >>> >>> 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] >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> ?In response to Stephanie's question to me "Who would >>> you propose?" (responding to my view that we n?eeded a >>> panel that represented multiple perspectives), Peter wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> 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." >>> >>> ?Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just >>> a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that >>> /The current state of preparation would imply the >>> following meetings/-/a session with the GAC plenary,/-/a >>> working lunch with the Board,/-/community wide afternoon >>> session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest >>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting >>> with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council /-/bilateral >>> meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>> / >>> / >>> ?Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the >>> CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/? community >>> groups) should be considered, to say the least. We >>> would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). >>> >>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>> additional suggestions for consideration for this panel >>> by the end of next week.?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? >>> >>> 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). >>> >>> 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.... >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> >>> Greg Shatan >>> President >>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 16:07:21 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:07:21 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: Please pick a rep for this. Cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 From: Gomes, Chuck To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org *To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions for WG consideration.* ** *Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list.* ** *Chuck* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ gnso-rds-pdp-wg mailing list gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-rds-pdp-wg From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Wed Feb 15 16:08:33 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:08:33 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>, Message-ID: Seems to me you Steph are by far the most qualified. Or you rather not be part of it? ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.07.21 A: ncsg-pc Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Please pick a rep for this. Cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 From: Gomes, Chuck To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions for WG consideration. Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list. Chuck The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 16:12:56 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:12:56 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> Message-ID: <591dc01c-e5f6-c12f-7e23-310e1bf5f8c6@mail.utoronto.ca> I don't want to hog it. I am also so fed up I am ready to quit, might be good to get someone else getting their feet wet a bit. SP On 2017-02-15 09:08, Milan, Stefania wrote: > Seems to me you Steph are by far the most qualified. Or you rather not be part of it? > > ________________________________________ > Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin > Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.07.21 > A: ncsg-pc > Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group > > Please pick a rep for this. > Cheers Stephanie > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group > Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 > From: Gomes, Chuck > To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org > > > To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions for WG consideration. > > Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list. > > Chuck > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Wed Feb 15 16:19:07 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:19:07 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: <591dc01c-e5f6-c12f-7e23-310e1bf5f8c6@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <591dc01c-e5f6-c12f-7e23-310e1bf5f8c6@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: You get a + 1 from me Stephanie On 15/02/2017 14:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I don't want to hog it. I am also so fed up I am ready to quit, might > be good to get someone else getting their feet wet a bit. > > SP > > > On 2017-02-15 09:08, Milan, Stefania wrote: >> Seems to me you Steph are by far the most qualified. Or you rather not be part of it? >> >> ________________________________________ >> Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin >> Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.07.21 >> A: ncsg-pc >> Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group >> >> Please pick a rep for this. >> Cheers Stephanie >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group >> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 >> From: Gomes, Chuck >> To:gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org >> >> >> To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions for WG consideration. >> >> Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list. >> >> Chuck >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Wed Feb 15 16:27:46 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:27:46 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <591dc01c-e5f6-c12f-7e23-310e1bf5f8c6@mail.utoronto.ca>, Message-ID: After a quick consultation with Stephanie who would rather not be put on the line this time (if I understand your correctly), I would be happy to take this on board (consulting with Steph along the way). ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di matthew shears Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.19.07 A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group You get a + 1 from me Stephanie On 15/02/2017 14:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I don't want to hog it. I am also so fed up I am ready to quit, might be good to get someone else getting their feet wet a bit. SP On 2017-02-15 09:08, Milan, Stefania wrote: Seems to me you Steph are by far the most qualified. Or you rather not be part of it? ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.07.21 A: ncsg-pc Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Please pick a rep for this. Cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 From: Gomes, Chuck To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions for WG consideration. Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list. Chuck The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 15 19:06:42 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:06:42 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <591dc01c-e5f6-c12f-7e23-310e1bf5f8c6@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Thank you for stepping forward here, Stefania! I support you serving on behalf of the NCSG on the small group developing potential questions to be asked of the Data Commissioners. If there is consensus on you serving in this capacity, I would be happy to notify the RDS PDP WG leadership team of your selection [unless someone else would like to do this, of course!]. Thanks again. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Local Time: 15 February 2017 2:27 PM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 14:27 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu To: matthew shears , ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is After a quick consultation with Stephanie who would rather not be put on the line this time (if I understand your correctly), I would be happy to take this on board (consulting with Steph along the way). ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di matthew shears Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.19.07 A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group You get a + 1 from me Stephanie On 15/02/2017 14:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: I don't want to hog it. I am also so fed up I am ready to quit, might be good to get someone else getting their feet wet a bit. SP On 2017-02-15 09:08, Milan, Stefania wrote: Seems to me you Steph are by far the most qualified. Or you rather not be part of it? ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.07.21 A: ncsg-pc Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Please pick a rep for this. Cheers Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 From: Gomes, Chuck To: gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions for WG consideration. Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list. Chuck The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Wed Feb 15 19:08:46 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 17:08:46 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group In-Reply-To: References: <6DCFB66DEEF3CF4D98FA55BCC43F152E57B4C673@BRN1WNEXMBX02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <591dc01c-e5f6-c12f-7e23-310e1bf5f8c6@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: + 1 and thanks. On 15/02/2017 17:06, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Thank you for stepping forward here, Stefania! I support you serving > on behalf of the NCSG on the small group developing potential > questions to be asked of the Data Commissioners. If there is consensus > on you serving in this capacity, I would be happy to notify the RDS > PDP WG leadership team of your selection [unless someone else would > like to do this, of course!]. Thanks again. > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for >> small group >> Local Time: 15 February 2017 2:27 PM >> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 14:27 >> From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu >> To: matthew shears , ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> >> After a quick consultation with Stephanie who would rather not be put >> on the line this time (if I understand your correctly), I would be >> happy to take this on board (consulting with Steph along the way). >> >> ________________________________________ >> Da: NCSG-PC per conto di matthew >> shears >> Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.19.07 >> A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for >> small group >> >> You get a + 1 from me Stephanie >> >> On 15/02/2017 14:12, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> I don't want to hog it. I am also so fed up I am ready to quit, might >> be good to get someone else getting their feet wet a bit. >> >> SP >> >> On 2017-02-15 09:08, Milan, Stefania wrote: >> >> Seems to me you Steph are by far the most qualified. Or you rather >> not be part of it? >> >> ________________________________________ >> Da: NCSG-PC >> >> per conto di Stephanie Perrin >> >> Inviato: mercoled? 15 febbraio 2017 15.07.21 >> A: ncsg-pc >> Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group >> >> Please pick a rep for this. >> Cheers Stephanie >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [gnso-rds-pdp-wg] Need volunteers for small group >> Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 20:30:54 +0000 >> From: Gomes, Chuck >> >> To: >> gnso-rds-pdp-wg at icann.org >> >> >> >> To prepare for the Monday cross-community and possibly the Wednesday >> WG session with Data Commissioners (DCs) in Copenhagen, a small group >> is being formed to develop a proposed list of questions for DCs. The >> proposed questions will be submitted to the WG for review prior to >> the 28 February meeting. We are seeking at least one (1) and no more >> than two (2) volunteers from each SG, Advisory Committee or interest >> group, to nominate themselves on-list by Monday, February 20. The >> small group will have one week to prepare a draft list of questions >> for WG consideration. >> >> Please feel free to consult with your colleagues to identify a person >> to represent your group in this effort. Volunteers should submit >> their names and the group they will represent to the WG email list. >> >> Chuck >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity >> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or >> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, >> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in >> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of >> the sender. If you received this communication in error, please >> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> + 44 771 2472987 >> >> >> The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity >> to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or >> privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, >> distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in >> reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the >> intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of >> the sender. If you received this communication in error, please >> contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 15 19:33:28 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 12:33:28 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi Stephanie, 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 [tentative schedule](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf).) Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: Rafik Dammak ncsg-pc Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... Steph On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Best, Rafik 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : 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 On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: What happened is this: - GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done - GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel - Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had to, these are busy guys) - IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) - Side meetings have apparently been arranged - 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 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. cheers Steph On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 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. Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 From: Greg Shatan [](mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com) To: KIMPIAN Peter [](mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int) CC: Victoria Sheckler [](mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com), James M. Bladel [](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com), kathy at kathykleiman.com [](mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com), donna.austin at neustar.biz [](mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz), heather.forrest at acu.edu.au [](mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au), Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), KWASNY Sophie [](mailto:Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int), Wilson, Christopher [](mailto:cwilson at 21cf.com), Tony Holmes [](mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com) All, 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 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. 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 not 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). 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. I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: Vicky wrote: I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. Peter responded: 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? Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and not 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). Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you suggested are much better. Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel representing multiple perspectives. * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. ? I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). 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. * 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. ? I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments expressed above. 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. ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin 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.) This description was provided by Peter: 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. Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no success. 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. 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 P suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak under these two slots). 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. 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). 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: 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. Vicky responded: 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, Greg: We still need that perspective. Peter responded with COE's goals: 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. 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. Prior to that Peter wrote: 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] 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. 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: 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. 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." Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that The current state of preparation would imply the following meetings- a session with the GAC plenary,- a working lunch with the Board,- community wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.- alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council - bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not merely with the more simpatico community groups) should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? 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). 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.... 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. Best Regards, Greg Shatan President Intellectual Property Constituency _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 15 23:38:36 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 16:38:36 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> you are right, it is on Saturday On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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 tentative schedule > .) > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM >> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: Rafik Dammak >> ncsg-pc >> >> >> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So >> do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... >> >> Steph >> >> >> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> >>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>> >> >: >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Farzaneh >>>> >>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>> >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> What happened is this: >>>> >>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace >>>> a lapsed HIT with this panel >>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >>>> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >>>> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>>> * 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 >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> cheers Steph >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- >>>>> Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Farzaneh >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>>> >>>>> Steph >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>> Subject: >>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>>> Date: >>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>>> From: >>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>> >>>>> To: >>>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>>> >>>>> CC: >>>>> Victoria Sheckler >>>>> , James M. Bladel >>>>> , >>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>>> >>>>> , >>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> , >>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> , Stephanie Perrin >>>>> >>>>> , KWASNY >>>>> Sophie >>>>> , Wilson, Christopher >>>>> , Tony >>>>> Holmes >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> All, >>>>> >>>>> /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 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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 _not_ 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). >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements >>>>> on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: >>>>> >>>>> Vicky wrote: >>>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which >>>>> panelist will represent public safety / transparency / >>>>> enforcement concerns. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Peter responded: >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and >>>>> perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that >>>>> it is a multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). >>>>> >>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some >>>>> point, so please accept my apologies for the >>>>> confusion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * 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??this expression was used by ICANN staff but I >>>>> can only agree that those you suggested are much >>>>> better. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is >>>>> predicated on the panel representing multiple >>>>> perspectives. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to >>>>> an absolute minimum.?I agree. 3+3 should be the >>>>> maximum (!). 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."?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). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * 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.?I >>>>> really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH >>>>> should also has to have 1 only because of the >>>>> arguments expressed above. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ?Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky >>>>> Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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.) >>>>> >>>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have >>>>> been seeking to participate and/or to have >>>>> participation from the >>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>>>> roster. So far with no success. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> P >>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities >>>>> could be invited to speak under these two slots). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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: 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. >>>>> >>>>> Vicky responded: >>>>> >>>>> 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, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>>> >>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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] >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> 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." >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just >>>>> a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that >>>>> /The current state of preparation would imply the >>>>> following meetings/-/a session with the GAC >>>>> plenary,/-/a working lunch with the Board,/-/community >>>>> wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an >>>>> ?High Interest Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently >>>>> a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council >>>>> /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>>>> // >>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with >>>>> the CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/ >>>>> community groups) should be considered, to say the >>>>> least. We would be honored to have such a meeting >>>>> (and we don't bite). >>>>> >>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>>>> additional suggestions for consideration for this >>>>> panel by the end of next week.?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? >>>>> >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> 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.... >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Best Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>> President >>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 16 21:32:32 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 14:32:32 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH Intersessional Participants In-Reply-To: <3A815F59A2E4D341AB8A5257F080F58E334BFB92@AME-EXMBX5.americas.global-legal.com> References: <3A815F59A2E4D341AB8A5257F080F58E334BFB92@AME-EXMBX5.americas.global-legal.com> Message-ID: <00b89836-8d04-971f-a69e-fa458181f498@mail.utoronto.ca> Seems important that we engage on this, can folks who are at the intercessional weigh in and brief us on what we might want to do? cheers SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH Intersessional Participants Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:44 +0000 From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org Dear NCPH Intersessional Participants: It was great working with all of you during our NCPH Intersessional meeting! Following up on our discussion during themeeting, I write to provide some additional background information on the .FEEDBACK Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) currently pending at ICANN. I know a number of you were interested in learning more about the issue, so hopefully this summary provides some helpful additional detail. As you may know, ICANN created the PICDRP to permit any person who has been harmed to ask ICANN to take action when a new gTLD registry operator violates its Public Interest Commitments (?PICs?). PICs are special provisions in the registry?s contract with ICANN. PICs are intended to ensure that the registry operates its gTLD in the public interest, free from fraudulent or deceptive activity, and in accordance with principles of transparency and non-discrimination. Unfortunately, from the moment Top Level Spectrum, Inc. (TLS) launched .FEEDBACK, it (and parties acting in concert with it), unleashed an escalating series of deceptive marketing practices that violate its PICs, and the promises it made to ICANN when it first applied for the exclusive right to run .FEEDBACK. TLS?s deceptive conduct violates its own policies, terms and conditions that it imposes on others, and violates certain applicable laws, including consumer protection laws. More specifically, as detailed in the complaint, TLS: * Promised they would run .FEEDBACK as a place for genuine commentary, whether positive or negative when TLS hired paid reviewers to write and post fabricated reviews on .FEEDBACK and cut and pasted users? comments posted years earlier from Yelp. TLS never disclosed that such reviews are not from actual customers, its role in soliciting and hiring paid reviewers, and the fact that the vast majority of such reviews (62%) come from users located in the Seattle, Washington area, near TLS?s headquarters. * Launched a marketing program called FREE.FEEDBACK, deceptively targeted brand owners to validate and renew .FEEDBACK domain names they never sought to register in the first place. The FREE.FEEDBACK program resulted in brand owners being targeted by phishing schemes. * Repeatedly changed its own policies and marketing programs in a confusing, unclear, nontransparent manner, and with the intent to discriminate against brand owners, (including self-allocating domain names bypassing the Sunrise Period protections, and charging exorbitant and discriminatory pricing for brand owners while offering the identical domain names to others for ?dirt cheap?). I emphasize that the complaint is _not_ an attempt to challenge the ostensible purpose of TLDs like .FEEDBACK to promote free expression or facilitate genuine public commentary or discourse, whether it be positive or negative about a company. The complaint is intended solely to address TLS?s deceptive practices. TLS?s own practices, including populating the majority of live .FEEDBACK websites with phony commentary and making unauthorized comments copied from third party websites like Yelp (including years-old reviews that are post-dated on the .FEEDBACK site to give the appearance that it is a recent comment) undermine any legitimate purpose behind this TLD. Unfortunately, we recently identified a number of additional ongoing incidents of fraudulent and deceptive conduct being perpetrated in the .FEEDBACK TLD. For example, we found that some .FEEDBACK websites contain what appear to be official customer service phone numbers on the FACEBOOK.FEEDBACK, WHATSAPP.FEEDBACK, and INSTAGRAM.FEEDBACK websites, but which actually appear to be used in connection with various well-known consumer scams. /See /National Public Radio, Searching for ?Facebook Customer Service? Can Lead to A Scam (Jan. 31, 2017). In addition, we also discovered that many .FEEDBACK websites contain false or inaccurate contact information about the companies that are the subject of .FEEDBACK websites. For example, a .FEEDBACK page for a particular company is supposed to include the authoritative phone number and address where consumers can reach that company. Instead, we have found that .FEEDBACK pages often contain incorrect or non-working phone numbers. These kinds fraudulent activities harm businesses, and consumers who seek real and trustworthy feedback about companies or are looking for customer support. These deceptive practices are exactly the kind of registry misconduct the PICs were designed to prevent. Our hope is that ICANN and a PICDRP Standing Panel will fully investigate TLS and the parties acting in concert with it, render a formal determination as to TLS?s PIC violations, and impose appropriate sanctions and remedial measures against TLS. ICANN must not only take action to address this registry?s misconduct, but also send a message that it will not tolerate these practices in any other TLDs. The full complaint that has been submitted to ICANN is publicly available here . We are currently seeking some additional procedural details from ICANN regarding the status of the matter and next steps. I hope this summary provides a helpful overview of the .FEEDBACK PICDRP. I would be happy to discuss the matter further during our remaining time together at the Intersessional, by email, or at the ICANN 58 meeting next month in Copenhagen. Best regards, Brian *Brian J. Winterfeldt* Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284 direct dial 202.830.0330 fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345 direct dial __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 18 02:26:41 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:26:41 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: 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. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is you are right, it is on Saturday On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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 [tentative schedule](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf).) Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: Rafik Dammak [](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com) ncsg-pc [](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is) Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... Steph On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Best, Rafik 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : 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 On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: What happened is this: - GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done - GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel - Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had to, these are busy guys) - IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) - Side meetings have apparently been arranged - 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 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. cheers Steph On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 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. Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 From: Greg Shatan [](mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com) To: KIMPIAN Peter [](mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int) CC: Victoria Sheckler [](mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com), James M. Bladel [](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com), kathy at kathykleiman.com [](mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com), donna.austin at neustar.biz [](mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz), heather.forrest at acu.edu.au [](mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au), Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), KWASNY Sophie [](mailto:Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int), Wilson, Christopher [](mailto:cwilson at 21cf.com), Tony Holmes [](mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com) All, 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 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. 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 not 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). 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. I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: Vicky wrote: I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. Peter responded: 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? Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and not 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). Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you suggested are much better. Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel representing multiple perspectives. * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. ? I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). 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. * 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. ? I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments expressed above. 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. ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin 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.) This description was provided by Peter: 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. Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no success. 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. 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 P suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak under these two slots). 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. 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). 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: 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. Vicky responded: 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, Greg: We still need that perspective. Peter responded with COE's goals: 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. 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. Prior to that Peter wrote: 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] 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. 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: 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. 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." Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that The current state of preparation would imply the following meetings- a session with the GAC plenary,- a working lunch with the Board,- community wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.- alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council - bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not merely with the more simpatico community groups) should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? 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). 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.... 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. Best Regards, Greg Shatan President Intellectual Property Constituency _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Feb 18 08:07:04 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 01:07:04 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something first thing Tuesday..... I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when but will find it and send to the list SP On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > 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. > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM >> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >> >> >> you are right, it is on Saturday >> >> >> On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> 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 tentative schedule >>> .) >>> >>> Best wishes, >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session >>>> Planning >>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM >>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 >>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>> ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). >>>> So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... >>>> >>>> Steph >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> 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? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>>> >>>> >: >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> What happened is this: >>>>>> >>>>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>>>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to >>>>>> replace a lapsed HIT with this panel >>>>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >>>>>> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >>>>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >>>>>> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >>>>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>>>>> * 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the >>>>>>> Cross- Community Discussion with >>>>>>> Data Protection Commissioners? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>> Subject: >>>>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>>>>> From: >>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To: >>>>>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CC: >>>>>>> Victoria Sheckler >>>>>>> , James M. Bladel >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> , >>>>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> , Stephanie >>>>>>> Perrin >>>>>>> , KWASNY >>>>>>> Sophie >>>>>>> , Wilson, Christopher >>>>>>> , Tony >>>>>>> Holmes >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /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 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 _not_ 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific >>>>>>> statements on this thread since I last had an >>>>>>> opportunity to respond: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vicky wrote: >>>>>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) >>>>>>> which panelist will represent public safety / >>>>>>> transparency / enforcement concerns. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter responded: >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and >>>>>>> perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- >>>>>>> that it is a multistakeholder organization and >>>>>>> /not/ 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at >>>>>>> some point, so please accept my apologies for >>>>>>> the confusion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * 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?? this expression was used by >>>>>>> ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you >>>>>>> suggested are much better. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is >>>>>>> predicated on the panel representing multiple >>>>>>> perspectives. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists >>>>>>> to an absolute minimum.? I agree. 3+3 should be >>>>>>> the maximum (!). 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."? 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * 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.? I really think that if >>>>>>> CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to >>>>>>> have 1 only because of the arguments expressed >>>>>>> above. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky >>>>>>> Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we >>>>>>> have been seeking to participate and/or to have >>>>>>> participation from the >>>>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>>>>>> roster. So far with no success. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P >>>>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities >>>>>>> could be invited to speak under these two slots). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vicky responded: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note >>>>>>> just a couple more things. One was Peter's >>>>>>> suggestion that /The current state of preparation >>>>>>> would imply the following meetings/-/a session with >>>>>>> the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch with the >>>>>>> Board,/-/community wide afternoon session possibly >>>>>>> in the format of an ?High Interest >>>>>>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint >>>>>>> meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council >>>>>>> /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>>>>>> // >>>>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with >>>>>>> the CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/ >>>>>>> community groups) should be considered, to say the >>>>>>> least. We would be honored to have such a meeting >>>>>>> (and we don't bite). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>>>>>> additional suggestions for consideration for this >>>>>>> panel by the end of next week. ?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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>> President >>>>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 18 20:39:13 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 13:39:13 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <3rxqY56VB24XLSplOJs2AoLWAJRzF39CnYy-cWk70b4M9c7S1Q8THfFQlTzFXCCyqd_ATrP9J0BtUw4meZMvv2dJv5lg18HK2slbGgQfjnY=@ferdeline.com> Thanks for this clarification, Stephanie, and for all your work organising this session. I just want to make sure I do not miss any of these sessions with the Commissioners. My understanding is on the Monday they will be at the following sessions: - 15:15? - 16:45: Cross-Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners - 17:00? - 18:30: GAC Meeting: Council of Europe Data Protection Commissioners Are there any others? The RDS session that Chuck is chairing on Monday is from 15:15 - 16:30, so if that's the one he has invited them to speak at, I just want to flag this as there appears to be a conflict. Thanks! Best wishes, Ayden F?rdeline [linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline) -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 18 February 2017 6:07 AM UTC Time: 18 February 2017 06:07 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: Ayden F?rdeline ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something first thing Tuesday..... I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when but will find it and send to the list SP On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: 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. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is you are right, it is on Saturday On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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 [tentative schedule](http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf).) Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: Rafik Dammak [](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com) ncsg-pc [](mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is) Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... Steph On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Best, Rafik 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin : 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 On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: What happened is this: - GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done - GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel - Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had to, these are busy guys) - IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) - Side meetings have apparently been arranged - 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 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. cheers Steph On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: 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. Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 From: Greg Shatan [](mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com) To: KIMPIAN Peter [](mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int) CC: Victoria Sheckler [](mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com), James M. Bladel [](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com), kathy at kathykleiman.com [](mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com), donna.austin at neustar.biz [](mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz), heather.forrest at acu.edu.au [](mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au), Stephanie Perrin [](mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca), KWASNY Sophie [](mailto:Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int), Wilson, Christopher [](mailto:cwilson at 21cf.com), Tony Holmes [](mailto:tonyarholmes at btinternet.com) All, 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 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. 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 not 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). 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. I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: Vicky wrote: I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. Peter responded: 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? Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and not 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). Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you suggested are much better. Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel representing multiple perspectives. * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. ? I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). 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. * 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. ? I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments expressed above. 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. ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin 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.) This description was provided by Peter: 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. Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no success. 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. 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 P suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak under these two slots). 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. 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). 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: 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. Vicky responded: 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, Greg: We still need that perspective. Peter responded with COE's goals: 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. 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. Prior to that Peter wrote: 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] 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. 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: 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. 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." Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that The current state of preparation would imply the following meetings- a session with the GAC plenary,- a working lunch with the Board,- community wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.- alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council - bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not merely with the more simpatico community groups) should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? 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). 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.... 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. Best Regards, Greg Shatan President Intellectual Property Constituency _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 18 21:15:01 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2017 14:15:01 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH Intersessional Participants In-Reply-To: <00b89836-8d04-971f-a69e-fa458181f498@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <3A815F59A2E4D341AB8A5257F080F58E334BFB92@AME-EXMBX5.americas.global-legal.com> <00b89836-8d04-971f-a69e-fa458181f498@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <4gCjmv-pkcr6JxCXdaXMULayMh8UfNrcHQrFZV9CL1k8hUtMOcfkb150-T6ZxDIzqwlDJYoCsK-xQPgi2CWyzzedTT52Je7r6VX8no71-jY=@ferdeline.com> This is a really interesting issue, because I can understand how the casual observer could view .feedback as engaging in deceptive and unfair business practices. It appears to me that all .feedback websites have the same template. When I went to the .feedback registry, I discovered that their domain names are sold as an all-inclusive, non-customisable platform, with differentiated fees for trademark holders versus those who do not own a trademark. In addition, the registry restricts the freedom of domain name owners to customise their website or to choose their own webhost. Self-hosting is only available with the purchase of the "self-serve add-on" for USD $720 per year plus $5,000 application fee per domain name, which strikes me as unusual. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH Intersessional Participants Local Time: 16 February 2017 7:32 PM UTC Time: 16 February 2017 19:32 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc Seems important that we engage on this, can folks who are at the intercessional weigh in and brief us on what we might want to do? cheers SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] .FEEDBACK PICDRP Update to NCPH Intersessional Participants Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2017 19:06:44 +0000 From: Winterfeldt, Brian J. [](mailto:BWinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com) To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org [](mailto:ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org) Dear NCPH Intersessional Participants: It was great working with all of you during our NCPH Intersessional meeting! Following up on our discussion during the meeting, I write to provide some additional background information on the .FEEDBACK Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) currently pending at ICANN. I know a number of you were interested in learning more about the issue, so hopefully this summary provides some helpful additional detail. As you may know, ICANN created the PICDRP to permit any person who has been harmed to ask ICANN to take action when a new gTLD registry operator violates its Public Interest Commitments (?PICs?). PICs are special provisions in the registry?s contract with ICANN. PICs are intended to ensure that the registry operates its gTLD in the public interest, free from fraudulent or deceptive activity, and in accordance with principles of transparency and non-discrimination. Unfortunately, from the moment Top Level Spectrum, Inc. (TLS) launched .FEEDBACK, it (and parties acting in concert with it), unleashed an escalating series of deceptive marketing practices that violate its PICs, and the promises it made to ICANN when it first applied for the exclusive right to run .FEEDBACK. TLS?s deceptive conduct violates its own policies, terms and conditions that it imposes on others, and violates certain applicable laws, including consumer protection laws. More specifically, as detailed in the complaint, TLS: - Promised they would run .FEEDBACK as a place for genuine commentary, whether positive or negative when TLS hired paid reviewers to write and post fabricated reviews on .FEEDBACK and cut and pasted users? comments posted years earlier from Yelp. TLS never disclosed that such reviews are not from actual customers, its role in soliciting and hiring paid reviewers, and the fact that the vast majority of such reviews (62%) come from users located in the Seattle, Washington area, near TLS?s headquarters. - Launched a marketing program called FREE.FEEDBACK, deceptively targeted brand owners to validate and renew .FEEDBACK domain names they never sought to register in the first place. The FREE.FEEDBACK program resulted in brand owners being targeted by phishing schemes. - Repeatedly changed its own policies and marketing programs in a confusing, unclear, nontransparent manner, and with the intent to discriminate against brand owners, (including self-allocating domain names bypassing the Sunrise Period protections, and charging exorbitant and discriminatory pricing for brand owners while offering the identical domain names to others for ?dirt cheap?). I emphasize that the complaint is not an attempt to challenge the ostensible purpose of TLDs like .FEEDBACK to promote free expression or facilitate genuine public commentary or discourse, whether it be positive or negative about a company. The complaint is intended solely to address TLS?s deceptive practices. TLS?s own practices, including populating the majority of live .FEEDBACK websites with phony commentary and making unauthorized comments copied from third party websites like Yelp (including years-old reviews that are post-dated on the .FEEDBACK site to give the appearance that it is a recent comment) undermine any legitimate purpose behind this TLD. Unfortunately, we recently identified a number of additional ongoing incidents of fraudulent and deceptive conduct being perpetrated in the .FEEDBACK TLD. For example, we found that some .FEEDBACK websites contain what appear to be official customer service phone numbers on the FACEBOOK.FEEDBACK, WHATSAPP.FEEDBACK, and INSTAGRAM.FEEDBACK websites, but which actually appear to be used in connection with various well-known consumer scams. See National Public Radio, [Searching for ?Facebook Customer Service? Can Lead to A Scam](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/01/31/511824829/-facebook-customer-service-is-a-scam-literally) (Jan. 31, 2017). In addition, we also discovered that many .FEEDBACK websites contain false or inaccurate contact information about the companies that are the subject of .FEEDBACK websites. For example, a .FEEDBACK page for a particular company is supposed to include the authoritative phone number and address where consumers can reach that company. Instead, we have found that .FEEDBACK pages often contain incorrect or non-working phone numbers. These kinds fraudulent activities harm businesses, and consumers who seek real and trustworthy feedback about companies or are looking for customer support. These deceptive practices are exactly the kind of registry misconduct the PICs were designed to prevent. Our hope is that ICANN and a PICDRP Standing Panel will fully investigate TLS and the parties acting in concert with it, render a formal determination as to TLS?s PIC violations, and impose appropriate sanctions and remedial measures against TLS. ICANN must not only take action to address this registry?s misconduct, but also send a message that it will not tolerate these practices in any other TLDs. The full complaint that has been submitted to ICANN is publicly available [here](https://www.markmonitor.com/downloads/PICDRPexhibits/). We are currently seeking some additional procedural details from ICANN regarding the status of the matter and next steps. I hope this summary provides a helpful overview of the .FEEDBACK PICDRP. I would be happy to discuss the matter further during our remaining time together at the Intersessional, by email, or at the ICANN 58 meeting next month in Copenhagen. Best regards,[] Brian Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt at mayerbrown.com 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284 direct dial 202.830.0330 fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345 direct dial __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 20 12:56:24 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:56:24 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi everyone, We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board seat election. First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended intersessional? We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our expectations. There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end of this week but we do need to be ready. Best, Rafik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Greg Shatan" Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process To: Cc: All, We probably need a different mailing list to finish working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this is the only active mailing list with both sides of the NCPH on it. We basically have no time to work this out, and we've already started the process without knowing what it is exactly, since we have now received nominations. In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following for consideration: 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). A few thoughts and comments: A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane in the air. B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP (though it would be nice to know the end of the nomination period). D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting. E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed as quickly as possible. Given the unusual circumstances, we don't need to use this process as precedent for any future process. We just need to get through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to respond to the draft sent at the end of the Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward. Thanks for reading, Greg P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline for naming the Director was changed from one month to two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in any event, since the Bylaws references are now obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. B. Since we are doing this with very little time *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 gregshatanipc at gmail.com ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Greg Shatan Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed interim Board Selection Process based closely on the Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes from the CPH document. A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" rights): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp nL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it a permanent rather than "interim" process. This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on this basis, given the short amount of time we have for this year. We look forward to your thoughts. Thanks! Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <(917)%20816-6428> S: gsshatan Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <(646)%20845-9428> gregshatanipc at gmail.com _______________________________________________ Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Comparison of NCPH Interim Process to CPH Final Process.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 19060 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: NCPHInterimProcessforBoardSeat14.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 6822 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Possible Board Seat 14 Process.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 15166 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ICANNBylawsSection11.3fandhGNSOBoardSeatSelectionProcess.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 5206 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 21 01:15:00 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 18:15:00 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> Message-ID: Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out if this will work.... Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 From: James M. Bladel To: GNSO Council List Councilors ? Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.* Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the call for applications until 7 MAR. Thank you, J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: RDS Review Scope Guidance_17Feb2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 24257 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From icann at ferdeline.com Tue Feb 21 02:05:57 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:05:57 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> Message-ID: It is interesting to read that the call may be re-opened yet again for volunteers to serve on the Review team; my understanding was that it had been re-opened three times already. I would prefer that a comprehensive Review be undertaken, but I appreciate it may not be the best allocation of the community?s resources. For that reason, I?m okay with a condensed timeline as long as we are not glazing over important issues that should indeed be reviewed. That said, I'm not entirely clear on what is in-scope as part of the compressed and comprehensive Review options ? it would be useful if Staff could prepare a comparison table which clarifies what would be in-scope for each option. What I don?t want is for the Review team to be brought onboard for six months and rushed to reach or (re)affirm a pre-determined conclusion. I worry about this when I see sentences like, ?The scope be limited to ?post mortem? of implementation results of the previous WHOIS review recommendations.? That sounds very restrictive to me. I thought IPC or someone else said a few months ago that a condensed Review would not be in line with the Bylaws. I can?t remember where I read or heard this (it is also possible that I am imagining it) ? does anyone else remember this being raised? - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance Local Time: 20 February 2017 11:15 PM UTC Time: 20 February 2017 23:15 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc , Kathy Kleiman Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out if this will work.... Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 From: James M. Bladel [](mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com) To: GNSO Council List [](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org) Councilors ? Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please respond by 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB. Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the call for applications until 7 MAR. Thank you, J. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 21 02:45:11 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:45:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> Message-ID: <906c3cc9-b8ec-df59-570a-cbd17377b498@mail.utoronto.ca> Hazy memory says yes, I would have to go back and check. I think it was Metalitz..... i agree with your concerns....it will be hard to do this in 6 months, without just saying yup they did what they said they would. It is not clear to me that they did.... SP On 2017-02-20 19:05, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > It is interesting to read that the call may be re-opened yet again for > volunteers to serve on the Review team; my understanding was that it > had been re-opened three times already. > > I would prefer that a comprehensive Review be undertaken, but I > appreciate it may not be the best allocation of the community?s > resources. For that reason, I?m okay with a condensed timeline as long > as we are not glazing over important issues that should indeed be > reviewed. That said, I'm not entirely clear on what is in-scope as > part of the compressed and comprehensive Review options ? it would be > useful if Staff could prepare a comparison table which clarifies what > would be in-scope for each option. > > What I don?t want is for the Review team to be brought onboard for six > months and rushed to reach or (re)affirm a pre-determined conclusion. > I worry about this when I see sentences like, ?The scope be limited to > ?post mortem? of implementation results of the previous WHOIS review > recommendations.? That sounds very restrictive to me. > > I thought IPC or someone else said a few months ago that a condensed > Review would not be in line with the Bylaws. I can?t remember where I > read or heard this (it is also possible that I am imagining it) ? does > anyone else remember this being raised? > > - Ayden > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance >> Local Time: 20 February 2017 11:15 PM >> UTC Time: 20 February 2017 23:15 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc , Kathy Kleiman >> >> >> >> Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have >> much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to >> study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who >> co-chaired the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out >> if this will work.... >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: >> [council] RDS Scope Guidance >> Date: >> Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 >> From: >> James M. Bladel >> To: >> GNSO Council List >> >> >> >> Councilors ? >> >> >> Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which >> consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on >> guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS >> (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, >> please respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.* >> >> >> Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed >> to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still >> interested in serving on this review team. There is also a proposal >> to extend the call for applications until 7 MAR. >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> J. >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 21 03:15:50 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:15:50 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> Message-ID: Hi, > > > I thought IPC or someone else said a few months ago that a condensed > Review would not be in line with the Bylaws. I can?t remember where I read > or heard this (it is also possible that I am imagining it) ? does anyone > else remember this being raised? > > I think if I am not mistaking that is similar to the comment we made about the limited scope for ATRT3. Best, Rafik > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance > Local Time: 20 February 2017 11:15 PM > UTC Time: 20 February 2017 23:15 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: ncsg-pc , Kathy Kleiman > > > > Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have much > guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to > study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired > the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out if this will > work.... > > Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > [council] RDS Scope Guidance > Date: > Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 > From: > James M. Bladel > To: > GNSO Council List > > > Councilors ? > > > > Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which > consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on > guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) > review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please > respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.* > > > > Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to RDS > Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in > serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the call > for applications until 7 MAR. > > > > Thank you, > > > > J. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Tue Feb 21 12:13:55 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2017 10:13:55 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Rafik Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it and we are running out of time. First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which was not really discussed further. Then we had some general discussion about the need to do something on the Board selection process. People voiced their views on different aspects of the process and there was concern over the timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others please jump in as I may have missed some important aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG proposal for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at least the initial stages of the process are underway. Matthew On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi everyone, > > We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board seat > election. > First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not agreed on > iceland on that regard from those who attended intersessional? > > We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points such as > having vote, NCA participation and so on. > > I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our expectations. > There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end of this > week but we do need to be ready. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Greg Shatan" > > Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process > To: > > Cc: > > All, > > We probably need a different mailing list to finish working on the > Board Seat selection process, and a small group to do it, but I'll > start here, since I think this is the only active mailing list > with both sides of the NCPH on it. > > We basically have no time to work this out, and we've already > started the process without knowing what it is exactly, since we > have now received nominations. > > In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously > circulated, I'm also attaching the following for consideration: > > 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG > representatives outlining a potential draft process. > 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised > draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO > Procedures. > 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section 11.3(f), which > covers the selection process for Seats 13-14 (to the extent that > is covered in the Bylaws), and Section 11.3(h), which is referred > to in Section 11.3(f). > > A few thoughts and comments: > > A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go through a > process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks (just to go > through). Talk about building the airplane in the air. > > B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible adjustments to > the timeline, but did not come to any decisions. It's not clear > to me whether Staff is preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > > C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we should put > out a call for any other nominations ASAP (though it would be nice > to know the end of the nomination period). > > D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH > bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting. > > E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed as quickly > as possible. Given the unusual circumstances, we don't need to > use this process as precedent for any future process. We just > need to get through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > respond to the draft sent at the end of the Intersessional. > However, given the gap between that and the bullet-points, it > might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect session ASAP > to move the ball forward. > > Thanks for reading, > > Greg > > P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but > nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures were > never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline for naming the > Director was changed from one month to two months (briefly) and > then six months prior to being seated. (The GNSO Procedures will > need to be updated in any event, since the Bylaws references are > now obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. > > B. Since we are doing this with very little time > > > > > *Greg Shatan > *C: 917-816-6428 > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: *Greg Shatan* > > Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process > To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > > > NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > > The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed interim Board > Selection Process based closely on the Final Process adopted by > the Contracted Parties House. Clean and marked drafts are > attached, showing changes from the CPH document. > > A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested > changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" > rights): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > > We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat process > and then revisit afterward before making it a permanent rather > than "interim" process. > > This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, BC and > ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on this basis, given > the short amount of time we have for this year. > > We look forward to your thoughts. > > Thanks! > > Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > > *Greg Shatan > *C: 917-816-6428 > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Wed Feb 22 04:27:18 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 11:27:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Matt, thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process and adjust the whole timeline. how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we don't have so much time for a long nomination period. I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are non-negotiable with regard to the process. Best, Rafik 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears : > Thanks Rafik > > Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it and we are > running out of time. > > First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which was not > really discussed further. Then we had some general discussion about the > need to do something on the Board selection process. People voiced their > views on different aspects of the process and there was concern over the > timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others please jump in as I > may have missed some important aspects). Markus announced he wanted to > continue in the role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > proposal for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be > general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > > I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and timeline for > nominations and getting that announced, so at least the initial stages of > the process are underway. > > Matthew > > On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board seat > election. > First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not agreed on > iceland on that regard from those who attended intersessional? > > We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points such as having > vote, NCA participation and so on. > > I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our expectations. > There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end of this week > but we do need to be ready. > > Best, > > Rafik > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Greg Shatan" > Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process > To: > Cc: > > All, > > We probably need a different mailing list to finish working on the Board > Seat selection process, and a small group to do it, but I'll start here, > since I think this is the only active mailing list with both sides of the > NCPH on it. > > We basically have no time to work this out, and we've already started the > process without knowing what it is exactly, since we have now received > nominations. > > In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously circulated, > I'm also attaching the following for consideration: > > 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG > representatives outlining a potential draft process. > 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised draft > timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section 11.3(f), which covers > the selection process for Seats 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > Bylaws), and Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). > > A few thoughts and comments: > > A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go through a process > that is contemplated to take 21 weeks (just to go through). Talk about > building the airplane in the air. > > B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible adjustments to the > timeline, but did not come to any decisions. It's not clear to me whether > Staff is preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > > C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we should put out a > call for any other nominations ASAP (though it would be nice to know the > end of the nomination period). > > D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH > bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting. > > E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed as quickly as > possible. Given the unusual circumstances, we don't need to use this > process as precedent for any future process. We just need to get through > this selection. One approach is for NCSG to respond to the draft sent at > the end of the Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and the > bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect > session ASAP to move the ball forward. > > Thanks for reading, > > Greg > > P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but nonetheless, it > should be noted that the GNSO Procedures were never updated from 2012, when > the Bylaws deadline for naming the Director was changed from one month to > two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being seated. (The GNSO > Procedures will need to be updated in any event, since the Bylaws > references are now obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. > > B. Since we are doing this with very little time > > > > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Greg Shatan > Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process > To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > > NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > > The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed interim Board > Selection Process based closely on the Final Process adopted by the > Contracted Parties House. Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing > changes from the CPH document. > > A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested changes can > be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" rights): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp > nL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat process and then > revisit afterward before making it a permanent rather than "interim" > process. > > This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, BC and ISPCP, but > we wanted to start the discussion on this basis, given the short amount of > time we have for this year. > > We look forward to your thoughts. > > Thanks! > > Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > > > *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <%28917%29%20816-6428> > S: gsshatan > Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <%28646%29%20845-9428> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Feb 22 15:40:59 2017 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 08:40:59 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> Message-ID: <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope goes far enough -- and I don't see any questions asking about the protections for Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois Review Team One to ensure that the inquiry was balanced and that everyone knew that Whois investigations, disclosures and compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair use and fair dealing and other forms of treasured communication -- including speech critical to governments, corporations, even ICANN! Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) about whether it can be expanded to at least be balanced and not completely one-sided in its review (e.g., how much can we give those who complain (IP and LE)? */Q/**/uick note that I have no idea how to take these suggestions to those who can process them -- do you? Can you?/* Best, Kathy o Whether RDS efforts meet the ?legitimate needs of law enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.? o Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of registrants - individuals, noncommercial organizations, small businesses and others, in their right to communicate political, personal, research, hobby and educational ideas with the privacy granted under national laws and consistent with the best free expression traditions of the world. o How RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and better coordinatedfor the benefit of all stakeholders. o Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and Implementation + How was the balance achieved in this long and painstaking Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments) + Has implementation under the direction of ICANN Staff and a much smaller team of volunteers fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI Working Group o Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes + Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants? + Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that registrants know when their domain names are being investigated (e.g., ensuring that registrars contact registrants re: investigation in a timely manner and with information about how to respond, and if not ICANN handles this function)? + How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for harassment and "bullshit factor" -- someone reporting something in the Whois record that does not impact the reliability of the data or the reachability of the registrant (e.g., a student not having a cell phone due to financial constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by email, regular mail, etc.)? + How can a registrant appeal a takedown of his/her/its domain name by ICANN Compliance -- and even investigate the details (registrants are going in circles trying to understand how their domain names disappeared). + What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse by those filing complaints? How can Compliance let the community know these anti-abuse steps are being taken? o Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual obligations data o The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol o The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has taken to implement WHOIS Recommendations o How have changes in law, high level court decision, adoption of data protection laws worldwide, etc, changed the legal framework of Whois and RDS data since the original Whois Review Team Report and how does this impact ICANN's work going forward. o On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have > much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to > study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who > co-chaired the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out > if this will work.... > > Stephanie > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 > From: James M. Bladel > To: GNSO Council List > > > > Councilors ? > > Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which > consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on > guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS > (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, > please respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.* > > Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to > RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested > in serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the > call for applications until 7 MAR. > > Thank you, > > J. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 22 20:30:28 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:30:28 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty of inviting her to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for the data protection officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is /supposed/ to be doing to protect data..... I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is definitely interest... cheers Steph On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it > is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be > something first thing Tuesday..... > > I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when > but will find it and send to the list > > SP > > > On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> 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. >> >> Ayden >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM >>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 >>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>> >>> >>> you are right, it is on Saturday >>> >>> >>> On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>> >>>> 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 tentative schedule >>>> .) >>>> >>>> Best wishes, >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session >>>>> Planning >>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM >>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 >>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>> ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). >>>>> So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... >>>>> >>>>> Steph >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>> >>>>>> 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? >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>>>> >>>>> >: >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What happened is this: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>>>>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to >>>>>>> replace a lapsed HIT with this panel >>>>>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >>>>>>> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >>>>>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >>>>>>> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >>>>>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>>>>>> * 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the >>>>>>>> Cross- Community Discussion with >>>>>>>> Data Protection Commissioners? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>> Subject: >>>>>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CC: >>>>>>>> Victoria Sheckler >>>>>>>> , James M. Bladel >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> , Stephanie >>>>>>>> Perrin >>>>>>>> , KWASNY >>>>>>>> Sophie >>>>>>>> , Wilson, Christopher >>>>>>>> , Tony >>>>>>>> Holmes >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /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 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 _not_ 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). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific >>>>>>>> statements on this thread since I last had an >>>>>>>> opportunity to respond: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vicky wrote: >>>>>>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) >>>>>>>> which panelist will represent public safety / >>>>>>>> transparency / enforcement concerns. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter responded: >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and >>>>>>>> perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- >>>>>>>> that it is a multistakeholder organization and >>>>>>>> /not/ 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). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at >>>>>>>> some point, so please accept my apologies for >>>>>>>> the confusion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * 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?? this expression was >>>>>>>> used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that >>>>>>>> those you suggested are much better. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is >>>>>>>> predicated on the panel representing multiple >>>>>>>> perspectives. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists >>>>>>>> to an absolute minimum.? I agree. 3+3 should be >>>>>>>> the maximum (!). 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."? 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). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * 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.? I really think that >>>>>>>> if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has >>>>>>>> to have 1 only because of the arguments >>>>>>>> expressed above. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky >>>>>>>> Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we >>>>>>>> have been seeking to participate and/or to have >>>>>>>> participation from the >>>>>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>>>>>>> roster. So far with no success. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P >>>>>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities >>>>>>>> could be invited to speak under these two slots). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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: 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Vicky responded: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note >>>>>>>> just a couple more things. One was Peter's >>>>>>>> suggestion that /The current state of preparation >>>>>>>> would imply the following meetings/-/a session with >>>>>>>> the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch with the >>>>>>>> Board,/-/community wide afternoon session possibly >>>>>>>> in the format of an ?High Interest >>>>>>>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint >>>>>>>> meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council >>>>>>>> /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>>>>>>> // >>>>>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with >>>>>>>> the CSG (and not merely with the more /simpatico/ >>>>>>>> community groups) should be considered, to say the >>>>>>>> least. We would be honored to have such a meeting >>>>>>>> (and we don't bite). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>>>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>>>>>>> additional suggestions for consideration for this >>>>>>>> panel by the end of next week. ?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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Wed Feb 22 20:36:45 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 18:36:45 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> , <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Dear Steph this is absolutely great. what can we do to help convincing her to join? And.. any chance you can.. share that manual? :-) Best, Stefania ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin Inviato: mercoled? 22 febbraio 2017 19.30.28 A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty of inviting her to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for the data protection officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is supposed to be doing to protect data..... I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is definitely interest... cheers Steph On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something first thing Tuesday..... I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when but will find it and send to the list SP On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: 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. Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is you are right, it is on Saturday On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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 tentative schedule.) Best wishes, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: Rafik Dammak ncsg-pc Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... Steph On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Best, Rafik 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >: 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 On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: What happened is this: * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel * Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had to, these are busy guys) * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) * Side meetings have apparently been arranged * 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 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. cheers Steph On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: Hi Stephanie, Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? 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? Farzaneh On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: 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. Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. Steph -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 From: Greg Shatan To: KIMPIAN Peter CC: Victoria Sheckler , James M. Bladel , kathy at kathykleiman.com , donna.austin at neustar.biz , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au , Stephanie Perrin , KWASNY Sophie , Wilson, Christopher , Tony Holmes All, 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 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. 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 not 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). 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. I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: Vicky wrote: I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. Peter responded: 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? Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and not 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). Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: * 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? --> this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you suggested are much better. Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel representing multiple perspectives. * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. --> I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." --> 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). 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. * 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. --> I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments expressed above. 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. --> Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin 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.) This description was provided by Peter: 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. Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no success. 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. 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 P suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak under these two slots). 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. 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). 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: 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. Vicky responded: 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, Greg: We still need that perspective. Peter responded with COE's goals: 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. 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. Prior to that Peter wrote: 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] 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. 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: 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. 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." Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that The current state of preparation would imply the following meetings- a session with the GAC plenary,- a working lunch with the Board,- community wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.- alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council - bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not merely with the more simpatico community groups) should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? 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). 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.... 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. Best Regards, Greg Shatan President Intellectual Property Constituency _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 22 20:41:18 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:41:18 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <934f06cc-8aab-d31d-db88-e8c2cdc5a74c@mail.utoronto.ca> Just a heads up: What, me worry? This is the implementation committee charged with putting into place the PPSAI policy we worked so hard on two years ago. The Public Safety Working Group, you may recall, was not happy about the fact that we gave proxy rights to non-individuals (eg. groups and associations). keeping an eye on this as I am on the group, but will need reinforcements shortly. cheers stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:29:34 +0000 From: Nick Shorey To: Amy Bivins CC: Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org Hi Amy, Thanks for the email, and very timely as I was also planning to send an update through - you beat me to it! We're about two weeks behind on our schedule, but we have a good group from the GAC / PSWG deliberating this issue, and I'm pleased to report we are already making good progress on some principles and structure, which we look forward to discussing with the broader IRT. I'm sure you can appreciate the level of detailed discussion around elements to the disclosure framework. Regarding timings, it looks likely that the full GAC will wish to take the opportunity to review the work of our little team, before sharing it back with yourselves. As such, I don't think we will be in a position to share the product of our discussions prior to ICANN58, but hopefully we can bring something to a session on the 11th which we can discuss. I will keep you updated on this, and will discuss a suitable time to meet on 11th with my colleagues from the GAC and PSWG. I hope that helps. Nick *Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.* Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance Department for Culture, Media & Sport HM Government | United Kingdom Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)7710 025 626 Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin Web: www.nickshorey.com On 21 February 2017 at 17:13, Amy Bivins > wrote: Hi Nick, I hope you are well! I wanted to check in to see how things are going on this project. If there is anything that I can do to help please let me know. Also, I want to invite you and your PSWG colleagues to meet with the IRT about this project while we are all together in Copenhagen. The IRT has a half-day meeting scheduled for Saturday, 11 May, for the full afternoon time slot (1:45 to 6:00). Are you and your colleagues available to meet with the IRT to discuss your work on this so far and any issues, questions or open items? The IRT?s schedule on the 11^th is flexible enough to accommodate any time you and your colleagues are available during the afternoon. If you can suggest a time I?ll add it to the agenda. Thanks so much, and we look forward to seeing you in Copenhagen! Best, Amy *Amy E. Bivins* Registrar Policy Services Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins at icann.org www.icann.org *From:*Nick Shorey [mailto:nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk ] *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 1:32 PM *To:* Amy Bivins > *Cc:* Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org *Subject:* [Ext] Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] [Feedback requested by 13 January] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document Hi everyone, On the section around requested timeline, prior to circulation of this document I'd proposed the below timeline to the PSWG team working on a draft framework proposal. It's largely the same (maybe a couple of weeks' difference), but I'm mindful to manage expectations within this group on how quickly we might be able to progress. PSWG Disclosure Framework Drafting Team Timeline: i. Team onboarding, task outline and background research - Jan '17 ii. Framework concepts - Feb '17 iii. Draft text - Feb '17 iiii. Review (PSWG & GAC) - March '17 v. Submission to IRT LEA Sub-Group - March '17 Kind regards, Nick *Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.* Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance Department for Culture, Media & Sport HM Government | United Kingdom Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)7710 025 626 Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin[linkedin.com] Web: www.nickshorey.com[nickshorey.com] On 9 January 2017 at 17:09, Amy Bivins > wrote: Hello, All, Thank you for volunteering for the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program IRT?LEA framework subteam. Attached, you will find a discussion document that includes requested topics/guidelines for the GAC Public Safety Working Group discussions surrounding the development of a proposed framework for LEA requests to privacy and proxy service providers. We plan to request that the PSWG create a first draft proposal to be discussed and refined within this subteam before presentation to the full IRT. *We are requesting your feedback by the end of this week, 13 January,* on this document. We aim to send this document, once finalized, to the PSWG next week. Please send all feedback to this list and if you have questions or comments please don?t hesitate to email the list or contact me directly. Best, Amy *Amy E. Bivins* Registrar Policy Services Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 Email: amy.bivins at icann.org www.icann.org[icann.org] _______________________________________________ Gdd_pp_irt_lea mailing list Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd_pp_irt_lea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gdd_pp_irt_lea mailing list Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd_pp_irt_lea From kathy at kathykleiman.com Wed Feb 22 20:55:13 2017 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 13:55:13 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <6a7b1815-9cbc-22d7-748a-ae8834f7f60d@kathykleiman.com> Stephanie, what are the slots on Monday (and perhaps Tuesday) that we should be attending to cheer loudly for the Data Protection Commissioners, you and Peter Kimpian of the Council of Europe? Can't wait to be at these events! Best and tx, Kathy On 2/22/2017 1:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who > happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is > interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty > of inviting her to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for > the data protection officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear > what law enforcement is /supposed/ to be doing to protect data..... > > I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is > definitely interest... > > cheers Steph > > > On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it >> is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be >> something first thing Tuesday..... >> >> I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember >> when but will find it and send to the list >> >> SP >> >> >> On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> Ayden >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session >>>> Planning >>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM >>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 >>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>> >>>> >>>> you are right, it is on Saturday >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>> >>>>> 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 tentative schedule >>>>> .) >>>>> >>>>> Best wishes, >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session >>>>>> Planning >>>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM >>>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 >>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>>> ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). >>>>>> So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... >>>>>> >>>>>> Steph >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>> >>>>>> >: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What happened is this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>>>>>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to >>>>>>>> replace a lapsed HIT with this panel >>>>>>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >>>>>>>> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >>>>>>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >>>>>>>> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >>>>>>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>>>>>>> * 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the >>>>>>>>> Cross- Community Discussion with >>>>>>>>> Data Protection Commissioners? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>> Subject: >>>>>>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> CC: >>>>>>>>> Victoria Sheckler >>>>>>>>> , James M. Bladel >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> , Stephanie >>>>>>>>> Perrin >>>>>>>>> , KWASNY >>>>>>>>> Sophie >>>>>>>>> , Wilson, >>>>>>>>> Christopher >>>>>>>>> , Tony Holmes >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /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 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 _not_ 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). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific >>>>>>>>> statements on this thread since I last had an >>>>>>>>> opportunity to respond: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vicky wrote: >>>>>>>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) >>>>>>>>> which panelist will represent public safety / >>>>>>>>> transparency / enforcement concerns. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter responded: >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question >>>>>>>>> and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN >>>>>>>>> -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and >>>>>>>>> /not/ 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). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at >>>>>>>>> some point, so please accept my apologies for >>>>>>>>> the confusion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 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?? this expression >>>>>>>>> was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree >>>>>>>>> that those you suggested are much better. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is >>>>>>>>> predicated on the panel representing multiple >>>>>>>>> perspectives. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists >>>>>>>>> to an absolute minimum.? I agree. 3+3 should >>>>>>>>> be the maximum (!). 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."? >>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * 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.? I really think that >>>>>>>>> if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has >>>>>>>>> to have 1 only because of the arguments >>>>>>>>> expressed above. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: >>>>>>>>> Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we >>>>>>>>> have been seeking to participate and/or to have >>>>>>>>> participation from the >>>>>>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>>>>>>>> roster. So far with no success. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P >>>>>>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities >>>>>>>>> could be invited to speak under these two slots). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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: 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Vicky responded: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note >>>>>>>>> just a couple more things. One was Peter's >>>>>>>>> suggestion that /The current state of preparation >>>>>>>>> would imply the following meetings/-/a session >>>>>>>>> with the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch with the >>>>>>>>> Board,/-/community wide afternoon session possibly >>>>>>>>> in the format of an ?High Interest >>>>>>>>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint >>>>>>>>> meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council >>>>>>>>> /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>>>>>>>> // >>>>>>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting >>>>>>>>> with the CSG (and not merely with the more >>>>>>>>> /simpatico/ community groups) should be >>>>>>>>> considered, to say the least. We would be honored >>>>>>>>> to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>>>>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>>>>>>>> additional suggestions for consideration for this >>>>>>>>> panel by the end of next week. ?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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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.... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Wed Feb 22 21:30:34 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 14:30:34 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <6a7b1815-9cbc-22d7-748a-ae8834f7f60d@kathykleiman.com> References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> <6a7b1815-9cbc-22d7-748a-ae8834f7f60d@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: at this point I don't really know Kathy, I think I need an update from Peter. Not sure what he is working on at the moment.... But I will share my schedule once I get it all filled in, that could be useful to those who want to follow privacy issues. Busy busy schedule for Copenhagen... cheers STephanie On 2017-02-22 13:55, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Stephanie, what are the slots on Monday (and perhaps Tuesday) that we > should be attending to cheer loudly for the Data Protection > Commissioners, you and Peter Kimpian of the Council of Europe? Can't > wait to be at these events! > > Best and tx, Kathy > > On 2/22/2017 1:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who >> happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is >> interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the >> liberty of inviting her to come and speak to us....she gave me the >> manual for the data protection officers in Europol, and it would be >> great to hear what law enforcement is /supposed/ to be doing to >> protect data..... >> >> I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is >> definitely interest... >> >> cheers Steph >> >> >> On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, >>> it is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be >>> something first thing Tuesday..... >>> >>> I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember >>> when but will find it and send to the list >>> >>> SP >>> >>> >>> On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Ayden >>>> >>>> >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session >>>>> Planning >>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM >>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 >>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> you are right, it is on Saturday >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 tentative schedule >>>>>> .) >>>>>> >>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>> >>>>>> Ayden >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session >>>>>>> Planning >>>>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM >>>>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 >>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>> ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how >>>>>>> Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask >>>>>>> Peter.... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What happened is this: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>>>>>>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to >>>>>>>>> replace a lapsed HIT with this panel >>>>>>>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of the >>>>>>>>> conference (they had to, these are busy guys) >>>>>>>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels >>>>>>>>> (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >>>>>>>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>>>>>>>> * 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the >>>>>>>>>> Cross- Community Discussion with >>>>>>>>>> Data Protection Commissioners? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>>> Subject: >>>>>>>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>>>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> CC: >>>>>>>>>> Victoria Sheckler >>>>>>>>>> , James M. Bladel >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> , Stephanie >>>>>>>>>> Perrin >>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>> KWASNY Sophie >>>>>>>>>> , Wilson, >>>>>>>>>> Christopher >>>>>>>>>> , Tony Holmes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /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 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 _not_ 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). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific >>>>>>>>>> statements on this thread since I last had an >>>>>>>>>> opportunity to respond: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vicky wrote: >>>>>>>>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) >>>>>>>>>> which panelist will represent public safety / >>>>>>>>>> transparency / enforcement concerns. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter responded: >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question >>>>>>>>>> and perhaps misses a fundamental point about >>>>>>>>>> ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder >>>>>>>>>> organization and /not/ 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). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at >>>>>>>>>> some point, so please accept my apologies for >>>>>>>>>> the confusion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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?? this expression >>>>>>>>>> was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree >>>>>>>>>> that those you suggested are much better. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is >>>>>>>>>> predicated on the panel representing multiple >>>>>>>>>> perspectives. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * I think we need to keep the number >>>>>>>>>> panelists to an absolute minimum.? I agree. >>>>>>>>>> 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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."? 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). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * 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.? I really think that >>>>>>>>>> if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has >>>>>>>>>> to have 1 only because of the arguments >>>>>>>>>> expressed above. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: >>>>>>>>>> Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we >>>>>>>>>> have been seeking to participate and/or to have >>>>>>>>>> participation from the >>>>>>>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the >>>>>>>>>> roster. So far with no success. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> P >>>>>>>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities >>>>>>>>>> could be invited to speak under these two slots). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Vicky responded: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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." >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note >>>>>>>>>> just a couple more things. One was Peter's >>>>>>>>>> suggestion that /The current state of preparation >>>>>>>>>> would imply the following meetings/-/a session >>>>>>>>>> with the GAC plenary,/-/a working lunch with the >>>>>>>>>> Board,/-/community wide afternoon session >>>>>>>>>> possibly in the format of an ?High Interest >>>>>>>>>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a joint >>>>>>>>>> meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council >>>>>>>>>> /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC/ >>>>>>>>>> // >>>>>>>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting >>>>>>>>>> with the CSG (and not merely with the more >>>>>>>>>> /simpatico/ community groups) should be >>>>>>>>>> considered, to say the least. We would be >>>>>>>>>> honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>>>>>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some >>>>>>>>>> additional suggestions for consideration for this >>>>>>>>>> panel by the end of next week. ?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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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.... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Wed Feb 22 22:01:50 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 15:01:50 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <45ba3607-e048-5a0a-e18a-73b902658675@apc.org> good idea. avri On 22-Feb-17 13:36, Milan, Stefania wrote: > Dear Steph this is absolutely great. what can we do to help convincing her to join? > And.. any chance you can.. share that manual? :-) > Best, Stefania > > > > ________________________________________ > Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin > Inviato: mercoled? 22 febbraio 2017 19.30.28 > A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > > I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty of inviting her to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for the data protection officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is supposed to be doing to protect data..... > > I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is definitely interest... > > cheers Steph > > On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something first thing Tuesday..... > > I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when but will find it and send to the list > > SP > > On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > 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. > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM > UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > > you are right, it is on Saturday > > On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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 tentative schedule.) > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM > UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: Rafik Dammak > ncsg-pc > > > > Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... > > Steph > > On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >: > > > 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 > > On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > > > What happened is this: > > * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done > * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel > * Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they had to, these are busy guys) > * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) > * Side meetings have apparently been arranged > * 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 > > 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. > > cheers Steph > > > On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: > Hi Stephanie, > > Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? > > 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? > > > Farzaneh > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin > wrote: > > > 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. > > Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. > > Steph > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: > Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > > Date: > Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 > > From: > Greg Shatan > > To: > KIMPIAN Peter > > CC: > Victoria Sheckler , James M. Bladel , kathy at kathykleiman.com , donna.austin at neustar.biz , heather.forrest at acu.edu.au , Stephanie Perrin , KWASNY Sophie , Wilson, Christopher , Tony Holmes > > > > All, > > 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 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. > > 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 not 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). > > 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. > > I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread since I last had an opportunity to respond: > > Vicky wrote: > I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. > > > > Peter responded: > 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? > > Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization and not 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). > > Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: > > > Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please accept my apologies for the confusion. > > Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: > > * 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? --> this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only agree that those you suggested are much better. > > Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel representing multiple perspectives. > > > > * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. --> I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." --> 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). > > 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. > > > * 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. --> I really think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because of the arguments expressed above. > > 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. > > > --> Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim Galvin > > 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.) > > This description was provided by Peter: > > 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. > > Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with no success. > > 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. > > 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 > P > suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak under these two slots). > > 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. > > 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). > > 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: 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. > > Vicky responded: > 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, > > Greg: We still need that perspective. > Peter responded with COE's goals: > > 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. > > 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. > > Prior to that Peter wrote: > > 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] > > 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. > > 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: > > 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. > > 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." > > Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more things. One was Peter's suggestion that The current state of preparation would imply the following meetings- a session with the GAC plenary,- a working lunch with the Board,- community wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.- alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council - bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC > > Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not merely with the more simpatico community groups) should be considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't bite). > > Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: > Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? > > 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). > > 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.... > > 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. > > Best Regards, > > Greg Shatan > President > Intellectual Property Constituency > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From pileleji at ymca.gm Wed Feb 22 22:03:06 2017 From: pileleji at ymca.gm (Poncelet Ileleji) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 21:03:06 +0100 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: <45ba3607-e048-5a0a-e18a-73b902658675@apc.org> References: <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> <45ba3607-e048-5a0a-e18a-73b902658675@apc.org> Message-ID: I concur also On 22 February 2017 at 21:01, avri doria wrote: > good idea. > > avri > > > On 22-Feb-17 13:36, Milan, Stefania wrote: > > Dear Steph this is absolutely great. what can we do to help convincing > her to join? > > And.. any chance you can.. share that manual? :-) > > Best, Stefania > > > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie > Perrin > > Inviato: mercoled? 22 febbraio 2017 19.30.28 > > A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > > > > I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who > happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is interested > in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty of inviting her > to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for the data protection > officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is > supposed to be doing to protect data..... > > > > I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is > definitely interest... > > > > cheers Steph > > > > On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > > > unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is > all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something first > thing Tuesday..... > > > > I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when > but will find it and send to the list > > > > SP > > > > On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > 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. > > > > Ayden > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > > Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM > > UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 > > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> > > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > > > > > > you are right, it is on Saturday > > > > On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > > > 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 tentative schedule org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf>.) > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Ayden > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > > Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM > > UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 > > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> > > To: Rafik Dammak > > ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do > we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... > > > > Steph > > > > On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > > > 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? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > > > 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca>: > > > > > > 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 > > > > On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > > > 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? > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> > wrote: > > > > > > What happened is this: > > > > * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done > > * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed > HIT with this panel > > * Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they > had to, these are busy guys) > > * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria > sheckler their person on this) > > * Side meetings have apparently been arranged > > * 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 > > > > 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. > > > > cheers Steph > > > > > > On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > > > Can you clarify something for me? Is this the Cross- Community > Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? > > > > 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? > > > > > > Farzaneh > > > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < > stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> > wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. > > > > Steph > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > Subject: > > Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > > > > Date: > > Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 > > > > From: > > Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com> > > > > To: > > KIMPIAN Peter Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int> > > > > CC: > > Victoria Sheckler , > James M. Bladel , > kathy at kathykleiman.com < > kathy at kathykleiman.com>, > donna.austin at neustar.biz < > donna.austin at neustar.biz>, > heather.forrest at acu.edu.au < > heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>, Stephanie > Perrin perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KWASNY Sophie Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>, Wilson, Christopher son at 21cf.com>, Tony Holmes tonyarholmes at btinternet.com> > > > > > > > > All, > > > > 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 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. > > > > 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 not 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). > > > > 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. > > > > I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread > since I last had an opportunity to respond: > > > > Vicky wrote: > > I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will > represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. > > > > > > > > Peter responded: > > 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? > > > > Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a > fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization > and not 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). > > > > Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: > > > > > > Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please > accept my apologies for the confusion. > > > > Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: > > > > * 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? --> this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only > agree that those you suggested are much better. > > > > Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel > representing multiple perspectives. > > > > > > > > * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. > --> I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." --> 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). > > > > 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. > > > > > > * 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. --> I really think > that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only because > of the arguments expressed above. > > > > 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. > > > > > > --> Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas > Schneider, Jim Galvin > > > > 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.) > > > > This description was provided by Peter: > > > > 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. > > > > Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to > participate and/or to have participation from the enforcement/cybercrime/infringement > side of the roster. So far with no success. > > > > 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. > > > > 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 > > P > > suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to speak > under these two slots). > > > > 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. > > > > 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). > > > > 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: > 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. > > > > Vicky responded: > > 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, > > > > Greg: We still need that perspective. > > Peter responded with COE's goals: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > > Prior to that Peter wrote: > > > > 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] > > > > 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. > > > > 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: > > > > 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. > > > > 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." > > > > Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more > things. One was Peter's suggestion that The current state of preparation > would imply the following meetings- a session with the GAC plenary,- > a working lunch with the Board,- community wide afternoon session > possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.- alternatively or > subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO Council - > bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC and ALAC > > > > Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not > merely with the more simpatico community groups) should be considered, to > say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting (and we don't > bite). > > > > Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: > > Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions > for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? > > > > 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). > > > > 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.... > > > > 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. > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Greg Shatan > > President > > Intellectual Property Constituency > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, > forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this > information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is > prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received > this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the > material from any computer. > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS Coordinator The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio MDI Road Kanifing South P. O. Box 421 Banjul The Gambia, West Africa Tel: (220) 4370240 Fax:(220) 4390793 Cell:(220) 9912508 Skype: pons_utd *www.ymca.gm http://jokkolabs.net/en/ www.waigf.org www,insistglobal.com www.npoc.org http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753 *www.diplointernetgovernance.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Wed Feb 22 23:09:10 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 16:09:10 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Compliance questions - any response? Message-ID: You asked many great questions of Jamie Hedlund during the compliance session at the Intersessional, Stephanie, all of which from memory were taken on notice. Out of curiosity, has there been a reply to any of them? I don't recall seeing one but maybe I missed it... - Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 01:35:47 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:35:47 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] PIR new policy / NCSG position Message-ID: Hi everyone, I think you heard the topic about PIR new policy (and also DNA) in last week at intersessional but also in other mailing lists. Some people expressed interest in discussing it and it also within the issue we raised many times about content regulation. here some links for background: - http://www.internetcommerce.org/dna-unveils-hdi-with-copyright-udrp/ - http://www.internetcommerce.org/ica-deeply-concerned-with-proposal-to-enable-domain-transfers-based-upon-copyright-claims/ - http://domainincite.com/21532-angry-reactions-to-udrp-for-copyright - http://domainincite.com/21517-the-pirate-bay-likely-to-be-sunk-as-org-adopts-udrp-for-copyright - https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/02/healthy-domains-initiative-censorship-through-shadow-regulation I understand that NCUC is planning to draft a statement on the topic. I would like to discuss here and in order to avoid duplication of efforts, to coordinate with NCUC statement and endorse it when ready. Jeremy Malcolm of EFF shared this draft of letter they are planning to send to ISOC https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IM8q7dLaavwOntQZpEzMtyZxLQjQbdDuLH0FE26fqQU/edit looking for your opinion and how we should move forward. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 01:47:20 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 08:47:20 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <294a63e3-d04f-17b7-6b9e-6dabde7b1ac3@mail.utoronto.ca> <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> <6a7b1815-9cbc-22d7-748a-ae8834f7f60d@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi, the data protection session is scheduled for Monday https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnl/cross-community-discussion-with-data-protection-commissioners the commissioners have other sessions, one with GAC ( https://schedule.icann.org/event/9np1/gac-meeting-council-of-europe-data-protection-commissioners) and I think some private meetings not listed in the schedule. we had the suggestion to have meeting the commissioners in Tuesday during NCSG session for CD but I don't think we have any suggested time or heard from Peter about that. @Stephanie can you please confirm the availability with him? we will also have to adjust our NCSG session agenda, @Tapani do you have a draft agenda for it yet? the session is here https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nqC/gnso-non-commercial-stakeholder-group-ncsg-meeting Best, Rafik 2017-02-23 4:30 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin < stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>: > at this point I don't really know Kathy, I think I need an update from > Peter. Not sure what he is working on at the moment.... > > But I will share my schedule once I get it all filled in, that could be > useful to those who want to follow privacy issues. Busy busy schedule for > Copenhagen... > > cheers STephanie > > On 2017-02-22 13:55, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Stephanie, what are the slots on Monday (and perhaps Tuesday) that we > should be attending to cheer loudly for the Data Protection Commissioners, > you and Peter Kimpian of the Council of Europe? Can't wait to be at these > events! > > Best and tx, Kathy > On 2/22/2017 1:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who > happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is interested > in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the liberty of inviting her > to come and speak to us....she gave me the manual for the data protection > officers in Europol, and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is > *supposed* to be doing to protect data..... > > I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is > definitely interest... > > cheers Steph > > On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is > all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something first > thing Tuesday..... > > I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when but > will find it and send to the list > > SP > > On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > 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. > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM > UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is > > > you are right, it is on Saturday > > On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > 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 tentative schedule > > .) > > Best wishes, > > Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning > Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM > UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 > From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca > To: Rafik Dammak > ncsg-pc > > > Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient). So do we > have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter.... > > Steph > > On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Stephanie, > > 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? > > Best, > > Rafik > > > 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin utoronto.ca>: > > 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 >> >> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >> >> Hi Stephanie, >> >> 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? >> >> Farzaneh >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >> >> What happened is this: >>> >>> - GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>> - GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead to replace a lapsed >>> HIT with this panel >>> - Invitations went out for the opening day of the conference (they >>> had to, these are busy guys) >>> - IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style panels (Victoria >>> sheckler their person on this) >>> - Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>> - 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 >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stephanie, >>> >>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the >>> Cross- Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners? >>> >>> 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? >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie Perrin < >>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>>> >>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>> >>>> Steph >>>> >>>> >>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>> Subject: >>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>> Date: >>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>> From: >>>> Greg Shatan >>>> To: >>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>> CC: >>>> Victoria Sheckler , James M. >>>> Bladel , >>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>> , donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>> , >>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>> , Stephanie Perrin >>>> , >>>> KWASNY Sophie , Wilson, >>>> Christopher , Tony Holmes >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> All, >>>> >>>> *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 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. >>>> >>>> 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 *not* 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). >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific statements on this thread >>>> since I last had an opportunity to respond: >>>> >>>> Vicky wrote: >>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep deprived) which panelist will >>>> represent public safety / transparency / enforcement concerns. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Peter responded: >>>> 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? >>>> >>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's question and perhaps misses a >>>> fundamental point about ICANN -- that it is a multistakeholder organization >>>> and *not* 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). >>>> >>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss this at some point, so please >>>>> accept my apologies for the confusion. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few thoughts: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * 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? ? this expression was used by ICANN staff but I can only >>>>> agree that those you suggested are much better. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is predicated on the panel >>>> representing multiple perspectives. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * I think we need to keep the number panelists to an absolute minimum. >>>>> ? I agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). 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." ? 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). >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> * 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. ? I really >>>>> think that if CPH has one panellist NCPH should also has to have 1 only >>>>> because of the arguments expressed above. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> >>>>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the panel: Becky Burr, Thomas >>>>> Schneider, Jim Galvin >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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.) >>>> >>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community and we have been seeking to >>>> participate and/or to have participation from the >>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of the roster. So far with >>>> no success. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 >>>>> P >>>>> suggested that the chair of these communities could be invited to >>>>> speak under these two slots). >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> 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: 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. >>>> >>>> Vicky responded: >>>> >>>> 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, >>>> >>>> >>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>> >>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>> >>>> 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] >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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: >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> 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." >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to note just a couple more >>>> things. One was Peter's suggestion that *The current state of >>>> preparation would imply the following meetings*- *a session with >>>> the GAC plenary,*- *a working lunch with the Board,*- *community >>>> wide afternoon session possibly in the format of an ?High Interest Topic?.* >>>> - *alternatively or subsequently a joint meeting with GNSO >>>> Council and ccNSO Council *- *bilateral meetings with NSCG, NCUC >>>> and ALAC* >>>> >>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral meeting with the CSG (and not >>>> merely with the more *simpatico* community groups) should be >>>> considered, to say the least. We would be honored to have such a meeting >>>> (and we don't bite). >>>> >>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having some additional suggestions >>>> for consideration for this panel by the end of next week. ?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? >>>> >>>> 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). >>>> >>>> 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.... >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> Greg Shatan >>>> President >>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 02:25:08 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:25:08 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments Message-ID: Hi everyone, >From the Public Comments page, I picked the 3 consultations that seem relevant for us and we had some discussion about. this is kind of planning for us to cover public comments: 1. GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process, https://www.icann. org/public-comments/igo-ingo , deadline *1 Mar 2017 * 2. At-Large Review: Draft Report, https://www.icann.org/public- comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en , deadline *24 Mar 2017 * 3. Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en , deadline *10 Apr 2017 * the first consultation is quite close, less than 1 week and the topic is important for us. We have an urgent need to get a volunteer to draft a quick comment. I am wondering if Kathy can jump in here. In any case, as PC we will have to act quickly if we get a statement to review. for at-large review, I would like to volunteer Ayden since he followed the discussion closely and read the report. @Ayden can you please start drafting and share the document with the wider NCSG list for consultation? for the last one, related to ICANN accountability work, it will be great to have someone involved in the CCWG to take the lead here. Maybe Matthew? while I am suggesting names among those in PC List, we can try to find other members take the lead or help. in term of planning for future public comments, we can follow upcoming consultations here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en to get an idea about what is coming (dates are of course tentative). there is also this separate page about "operational" public comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments-operational , something to follow more closely. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 02:29:52 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:29:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: hi, Thanks Kathy for the suggestions! councilors have until 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB to suggest comments or edits. so can we review the suggestions and we can submit them to the council list as input from NCSG. please if you have any other comments or suggestion, please suggest some wording for the document. Best, Rafik 2017-02-22 22:40 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman : > Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope goes far enough > -- and I don't see any questions asking about the protections for > Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois Review Team One to ensure that > the inquiry was balanced and that everyone knew that Whois investigations, > disclosures and compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and > others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair use and fair > dealing and other forms of treasured communication -- including speech > critical to governments, corporations, even ICANN! > > Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) about whether > it can be expanded to at least be balanced and not completely one-sided in > its review (e.g., how much can we give those who complain (IP and LE)? > *Q**uick note that I have no idea how to take these suggestions to those > who can process them -- do you? Can you?* > > Best, Kathy > > > - > > Whether RDS efforts meet the ?legitimate needs of law enforcement, > promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.? > - Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of registrants - > individuals, noncommercial organizations, small businesses and others, in > their right to communicate political, personal, research, hobby and > educational ideas with the privacy granted under national laws and > consistent with the best free expression traditions of the world. > - > > How RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and > better coordinated for the benefit of all stakeholders. > - > > Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and Implementation > - How was the balance achieved in this long and painstaking Working > Group? (with over 10,000 comments) > - Has implementation under the direction of ICANN Staff and a > much smaller team of volunteers fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI > Working Group > - > > Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes > - Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants? > - Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that registrants know > when their domain names are being investigated (e.g., ensuring that > registrars contact registrants re: investigation in a timely manner and > with information about how to respond, and if not ICANN handles this > function)? > - How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for harassment > and "bullshit factor" -- someone reporting something in the Whois record > that does not impact the reliability of the data or the reachability of the > registrant (e.g., a student not having a cell phone due to financial > constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by email, regular mail, > etc.)? > - How can a registrant appeal a takedown of his/her/its domain > name by ICANN Compliance -- and even investigate the details (registrants > are going in circles trying to understand how their domain names > disappeared). > - What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse by those > filing complaints? How can Compliance let the community know these > anti-abuse steps are being taken? > - > > Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual obligations > data > - > > The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol > - > > The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has taken to > implement WHOIS Recommendations > - How have changes in law, high level court decision, adoption of > data protection laws worldwide, etc, changed the legal framework of Whois > and RDS data since the original Whois Review Team Report and how does this > impact ICANN's work going forward. > - > > On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have much > guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to > study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired > the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out if this will > work.... > > Stephanie > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 > From: James M. Bladel > To: GNSO Council List > > Councilors ? > > > > Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which > consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on > guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) > review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please > respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.* > > > > Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to RDS > Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in > serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the call > for applications until 7 MAR. > > > > Thank you, > > > > J. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Thu Feb 23 02:44:33 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 19:44:33 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <83e7553677b24ea49cf4411683a22075@toast.net> Hi Rafik, On the Transparency public comments, as well as other public comments related to the CCWG - Accountability, might I suggest delegating that to Robin's Accountability group. There are going to be about a dozen public comments coming out of the CCWG over the next half year. It might be best to split those off of the general public comments and organise them initially within the NCSG Accountability group. Robin's done a fantastic job organising our CCWG comments in the past - we have a call next Tuesday and that would probably be a good place to get started on it. Just a suggestion - as Michael is a co-chair of the Transparency group and is part of the NCSG Accountability group that might be a resource we could use for informational purposes there. Thanks for getting on top of all of these comments. Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:25 AM To: "ncsg-pc" Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments Hi everyone, From the Public Comments page, I picked the 3 consultations that seem relevant for us and we had some discussion about. this is kind of planning for us to cover public comments: GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo , deadline 1 Mar 2017 At-Large Review: Draft Report, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01 -en, deadline 24 Mar 2017 Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en , deadline 10 Apr 2017 the first consultation is quite close, less than 1 week and the topic is important for us. We have an urgent need to get a volunteer to draft a quick comment. I am wondering if Kathy can jump in here. In any case, as PC we will have to act quickly if we get a statement to review. for at-large review, I would like to volunteer Ayden since he followed the discussion closely and read the report. @Ayden can you please start drafting and share the document with the wider NCSG list for consultation? for the last one, related to ICANN accountability work, it will be great to have someone involved in the CCWG to take the lead here. Maybe Matthew? while I am suggesting names among those in PC List, we can try to find other members take the lead or help. in term of planning for future public comments, we can follow upcoming consultations here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en to get an idea about what is coming (dates are of course tentative). there is also this separate page about "operational" public comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments-operational , something to follow more closely. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 03:04:19 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:04:19 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments In-Reply-To: <83e7553677b24ea49cf4411683a22075@toast.net> References: <83e7553677b24ea49cf4411683a22075@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi Ed, thanks for the response and suggestion. I added Robin in cc. I am happy if the group manage to cover any upcoming public comments from CCWG, while the NCSG PC still should follow closely and be ready for review and endorsement. @Robin can you please liaise with us for any CCWG ws2 related comments that NCSG needs to submit a statement on. Best, Rafik 2017-02-23 9:44 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > Hi Rafik, > > On the Transparency public comments, as well as other public comments > related to the CCWG - Accountability, might I suggest delegating that to > Robin's Accountability group. There are going to be about a dozen public > comments coming out of the CCWG over the next half year. It might be best > to split those off of the general public comments and organise them > initially within the NCSG Accountability group. Robin's done a fantastic > job organising our CCWG comments in the past - we have a call next Tuesday > and that would probably be a good place to get started on it. > > Just a suggestion - as Michael is a co-chair of the Transparency group and > is part of the NCSG Accountability group that might be a resource we could > use for informational purposes there. > > Thanks for getting on top of all of these comments. > > Best, > > Ed > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:25 AM > *To*: "ncsg-pc" > *Subject*: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments > > Hi everyone, > > From the Public Comments page, I picked the 3 consultations that > seem relevant for us and we had some discussion about. this is kind of > planning for us to cover public comments: > > 1. GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights > Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process, https://www.icann.org > /public-comments/igo-ingo , deadline *1 Mar 2017 * > 2. At-Large Review: Draft Report, https://www.icann.org/public- > comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en > , > deadline *24 Mar 2017 * > 3. Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency, > https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2 > 017-02-21-en > > , deadline *10 Apr 2017 * > > the first consultation is quite close, less than 1 week and the topic is > important for us. We have an urgent need to get a volunteer to draft a > quick comment. I am wondering if Kathy can jump in here. In any case, as PC > we will have to act quickly if we get a statement to review. > > for at-large review, I would like to volunteer Ayden since he followed the > discussion closely and read the report. @Ayden can you please start > drafting and share the document with the wider NCSG list for consultation? > > for the last one, related to ICANN accountability work, it will be great > to have someone involved in the CCWG to take the lead here. Maybe Matthew? > > while I am suggesting names among those in PC List, we can try to find > other members take the lead or help. > > in term of planning for future public comments, we can follow upcoming > consultations here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012- > 02-25-en to get an idea about what is coming (dates are of course > tentative). > > there is also this separate page about "operational" public comments > https://www.icann.org/public-comments-operational , something to follow > more closely. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Thu Feb 23 03:45:19 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:45:19 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks, Rafik. I would be pleased to take the lead drafting our comments on the initial report of the At-Large Review. I think we need to be careful here, people in glass houses and stones and all that... I am tempted to suggest we limit the focus of our comments only to the inaccurate comparisons drawn between the NCUC, NCSG, and ALAC. We should also put forward our opposition to an advisory committee taking on more influence in the policy sphere, particularly with their obscene levels of staff support, as that is a direct threat to our legitimacy and the legitimacy of the GNSO. I don't think we should comment on the rest of the report; surely At-Large is best placed to produce a response which addresses some of the methodological issues within it. And if not, that is to their detriment. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments Local Time: 23 February 2017 12:25 AM UTC Time: 23 February 2017 00:25 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc Hi everyone, From the Public Comments page, I picked the 3 consultations that seem relevant for us and we had some discussion about. this is kind of planning for us to cover public comments: - GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo , deadline 1 Mar 2017 - At-Large Review: Draft Report, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en, deadline 24 Mar 2017 - Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en , deadline 10 Apr 2017 the first consultation is quite close, less than 1 week and the topic is important for us. We have an urgent need to get a volunteer to draft a quick comment. I am wondering if Kathy can jump in here. In any case, as PC we will have to act quickly if we get a statement to review. for at-large review, I would like to volunteer Ayden since he followed the discussion closely and read the report. @Ayden can you please start drafting and share the document with the wider NCSG list for consultation? for the last one, related to ICANN accountability work, it will be great to have someone involved in the CCWG to take the lead here. Maybe Matthew? while I am suggesting names among those in PC List, we can try to find other members take the lead or help. in term of planning for future public comments, we can follow upcoming consultations here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en to get an idea about what is coming (dates are of course tentative). there is also this separate page about "operational" public comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments-operational , something to follow more closely. Best, Rafik -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 23 05:03:03 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:03:03 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Compliance questions - any response? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <039b5e21-8516-34b6-56e2-7a372dada88a@mail.utoronto.ca> Not yet... he sent a message saying he would respond to outstanding questions, to the entire list. That is all I have heard, will follow up in a few days. Cheers STephanie On 2017-02-22 16:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > You asked many great questions of Jamie Hedlund during the compliance > session at the Intersessional, Stephanie, all of which from memory > were taken on notice. Out of curiosity, has there been a reply to any > of them? I don't recall seeing one but maybe I missed it... > > - Ayden > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Thu Feb 23 05:23:00 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 22:23:00 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning In-Reply-To: References: <0488d009-7042-b7c7-d8c1-1445590d8dd7@mail.utoronto.ca> <3acc5981-b449-f910-94c6-2c0cf53f65f9@mail.utoronto.ca> <8bea58a5-1cb9-64e2-3f75-585dc885aaf8@mail.utoronto.ca> <5ac7edb3-7f9c-0dab-10e3-829ad15bc09a@mail.utoronto.ca> <6a7b1815-9cbc-22d7-748a-ae8834f7f60d@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: I have asked Peter for an update Rafik but nothing back so far, will keep at it as he is the only one who can help with that. Stephanie On 2017-02-22 18:47, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > the data protection session is scheduled for Monday > https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnl/cross-community-discussion-with-data-protection-commissioners > the commissioners have other sessions, one with GAC > (https://schedule.icann.org/event/9np1/gac-meeting-council-of-europe-data-protection-commissioners) > and I think some private meetings not listed in the schedule. > we had the suggestion to have meeting the commissioners in > Tuesday during NCSG session for CD but I don't think we have any > suggested time or heard from Peter about that. @Stephanie can you > please confirm the availability with him? > we will also have to adjust our NCSG session agenda, @Tapani do you > have a draft agenda for it yet? the session is here > https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nqC/gnso-non-commercial-stakeholder-group-ncsg-meeting > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-23 4:30 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin > >: > > at this point I don't really know Kathy, I think I need an update > from Peter. Not sure what he is working on at the moment.... > > But I will share my schedule once I get it all filled in, that > could be useful to those who want to follow privacy issues. Busy > busy schedule for Copenhagen... > > cheers STephanie > > > On 2017-02-22 13:55, Kathy Kleiman wrote: >> >> Stephanie, what are the slots on Monday (and perhaps Tuesday) >> that we should be attending to cheer loudly for the Data >> Protection Commissioners, you and Peter Kimpian of the Council of >> Europe? Can't wait to be at these events! >> >> Best and tx, Kathy >> >> On 2/22/2017 1:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>> >>> I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol >>> (who happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). >>> She is interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I >>> took the liberty of inviting her to come and speak to us....she >>> gave me the manual for the data protection officers in Europol, >>> and it would be great to hear what law enforcement is /supposed/ >>> to be doing to protect data..... >>> >>> I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there >>> is definitely interest... >>> >>> cheers Steph >>> >>> >>> On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >>>> >>>> unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till >>>> Wednesday, it is all getting crammed into Monday. best we >>>> could do would be something first thing Tuesday..... >>>> >>>> I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can >>>> remember when but will find it and send to the list >>>> >>>> SP >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> Ayden >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection >>>>>> Session Planning >>>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM >>>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38 >>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>>>> >>>>>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> you are right, it is on Saturday >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> tentative schedule >>>>>>> .) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best wishes, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ayden >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection >>>>>>>> Session Planning >>>>>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM >>>>>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 >>>>>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> To: Rafik Dammak >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ncsg-pc >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how >>>>>>>> Convenient). So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask >>>>>>>> Peter.... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 2017-02-15 14:12 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:59, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 11:23 PM, Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What happened is this: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> * GAC was asked to sponsor, never got it done >>>>>>>>>> * GNSO was asked to sponsor, proposed instead >>>>>>>>>> to replace a lapsed HIT with this panel >>>>>>>>>> * Invitations went out for the opening day of >>>>>>>>>> the conference (they had to, these are busy >>>>>>>>>> guys) >>>>>>>>>> * IPC weighed in demanding balanced HIT style >>>>>>>>>> panels (Victoria sheckler their person on this) >>>>>>>>>> * Side meetings have apparently been arranged >>>>>>>>>> * 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 >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> cheers Steph >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 2017-02-14 23:09, farzaneh badii wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Hi Stephanie, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you clarify something for me? Is this the >>>>>>>>>>> Cross- Community Discussion with >>>>>>>>>>> Data Protection Commissioners? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Farzaneh >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 10:43 PM, Stephanie >>>>>>>>>>> Perrin >>>>>>>>>> > wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Suggestions welcome. Pissed off, am I. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Steph >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >>>>>>>>>>> Subject: >>>>>>>>>>> Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning >>>>>>>>>>> Date: >>>>>>>>>>> Tue, 14 Feb 2017 21:52:54 -0500 >>>>>>>>>>> From: >>>>>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> To: >>>>>>>>>>> KIMPIAN Peter >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> CC: >>>>>>>>>>> Victoria Sheckler >>>>>>>>>>> , James M. Bladel >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>> kathy at kathykleiman.com >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>> donna.austin at neustar.biz >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>> heather.forrest at acu.edu.au >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> , >>>>>>>>>>> KWASNY Sophie >>>>>>>>>>> , Wilson, >>>>>>>>>>> Christopher >>>>>>>>>>> , Tony Holmes >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> /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 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 _not_ 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). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd like to respond to some of the specific >>>>>>>>>>> statements on this thread since I last had >>>>>>>>>>> an opportunity to respond: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Vicky wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I don?t see here (but I am also sleep >>>>>>>>>>> deprived) which panelist will represent >>>>>>>>>>> public safety / transparency / enforcement >>>>>>>>>>> concerns. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter responded: >>>>>>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greg: This misses the point of Vicky's >>>>>>>>>>> question and perhaps misses a fundamental >>>>>>>>>>> point about ICANN -- that it is a >>>>>>>>>>> multistakeholder organization and /not/ 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). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter replied to James Bladel in red below: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, Peter. Looks like I did miss >>>>>>>>>>> this at some point, so please accept my >>>>>>>>>>> apologies for the confusion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Generally, I"m ok with this, but a few >>>>>>>>>>> thoughts: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * 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?? >>>>>>>>>>> this expression was used by ICANN staff >>>>>>>>>>> but I can only agree that those you >>>>>>>>>>> suggested are much better. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greg: From my point of view, this support is >>>>>>>>>>> predicated on the panel representing >>>>>>>>>>> multiple perspectives. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * I think we need to keep the number >>>>>>>>>>> panelists to an absolute minimum.? I >>>>>>>>>>> agree. 3+3 should be the maximum (!). >>>>>>>>>>> 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."? 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). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * 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.? I really think that if CPH >>>>>>>>>>> has one panellist NCPH should also has >>>>>>>>>>> to have 1 only because of the arguments >>>>>>>>>>> expressed above. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ? Therefore our suggestion for the >>>>>>>>>>> panel: Becky Burr, Thomas Schneider, Jim >>>>>>>>>>> Galvin >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This description was provided by Peter: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greg: We are an interested ICANN community >>>>>>>>>>> and we have been seeking to participate >>>>>>>>>>> and/or to have participation from the >>>>>>>>>>> enforcement/cybercrime/infringement side of >>>>>>>>>>> the roster. So far with no success. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> P >>>>>>>>>>> suggested that the chair of these >>>>>>>>>>> communities could be invited to speak >>>>>>>>>>> under these two slots). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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: 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Vicky responded: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greg: We still need that perspective. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter responded with COE's goals: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Prior to that Peter wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Any more would be piling on, but I wanted to >>>>>>>>>>> note just a couple more things. One was >>>>>>>>>>> Peter's suggestion that /The current state >>>>>>>>>>> of preparation would imply the following >>>>>>>>>>> meetings/-/a session with the GAC >>>>>>>>>>> plenary,/-/a working lunch with the >>>>>>>>>>> Board,/-/community wide afternoon session >>>>>>>>>>> possibly in the format of an ?High Interest >>>>>>>>>>> Topic?./-/alternatively or subsequently a >>>>>>>>>>> joint meeting with GNSO Council and ccNSO >>>>>>>>>>> Council /-/bilateral meetings with NSCG, >>>>>>>>>>> NCUC and ALAC/ >>>>>>>>>>> // >>>>>>>>>>> Greg: I would suggest that a bilateral >>>>>>>>>>> meeting with the CSG (and not merely with >>>>>>>>>>> the more /simpatico/ community groups) >>>>>>>>>>> should be considered, to say the least. We >>>>>>>>>>> would be honored to have such a meeting (and >>>>>>>>>>> we don't bite). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Peter wrote, in response to Vicky: >>>>>>>>>>> Separately, please note I anticipate having >>>>>>>>>>> some additional suggestions for >>>>>>>>>>> consideration for this panel by the end of >>>>>>>>>>> next week. ?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? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Greg Shatan >>>>>>>>>>> President >>>>>>>>>>> Intellectual Property Constituency >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing > list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Thu Feb 23 10:07:30 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 17:07:30 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at least covering the topic of nomination. Best, Rafik 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > Hi Matt, > > thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. > I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process and > adjust the whole timeline. > how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for now. shall > we initiate a process to find other candidates? we don't have so much time > for a long nomination period. > > I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press us but we > should stand and be clear about the aspects which are non-negotiable with > regard to the process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears : > >> Thanks Rafik >> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it and we are >> running out of time. >> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which was not >> really discussed further. Then we had some general discussion about the >> need to do something on the Board selection process. People voiced their >> views on different aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others please jump in as I >> may have missed some important aspects). Markus announced he wanted to >> continue in the role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG >> proposal for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and timeline for >> nominations and getting that announced, so at least the initial stages of >> the process are underway. >> >> Matthew >> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board seat >> election. >> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not agreed on >> iceland on that regard from those who attended intersessional? >> >> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points such as having >> vote, NCA participation and so on. >> >> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our expectations. >> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end of this week >> but we do need to be ready. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Greg Shatan" >> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process >> To: >> Cc: >> >> All, >> >> We probably need a different mailing list to finish working on the Board >> Seat selection process, and a small group to do it, but I'll start here, >> since I think this is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >> NCPH on it. >> >> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've already started the >> process without knowing what it is exactly, since we have now received >> nominations. >> >> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures previously >> circulated, I'm also attaching the following for consideration: >> >> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and NCSG >> representatives outlining a potential draft process. >> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a revised draft >> timeline and some relevant excerpts from Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section 11.3(f), which covers >> the selection process for Seats 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the >> Bylaws), and Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). >> >> A few thoughts and comments: >> >> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go through a process >> that is contemplated to take 21 weeks (just to go through). Talk about >> building the airplane in the air. >> >> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible adjustments to the >> timeline, but did not come to any decisions. It's not clear to me whether >> Staff is preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >> >> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we should put out a >> call for any other nominations ASAP (though it would be nice to know the >> end of the nomination period). >> >> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the NCPH >> bullet-points are significantly different when it comes to voting. >> >> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed as quickly as >> possible. Given the unusual circumstances, we don't need to use this >> process as precedent for any future process. We just need to get through >> this selection. One approach is for NCSG to respond to the draft sent at >> the end of the Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and the >> bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect >> session ASAP to move the ball forward. >> >> Thanks for reading, >> >> Greg >> >> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but nonetheless, it >> should be noted that the GNSO Procedures were never updated from 2012, when >> the Bylaws deadline for naming the Director was changed from one month to >> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being seated. (The GNSO >> Procedures will need to be updated in any event, since the Bylaws >> references are now obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. >> >> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >> >> >> >> >> >> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Greg Shatan >> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process >> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> >> >> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >> >> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed interim Board >> Selection Process based closely on the Final Process adopted by the >> Contracted Parties House. Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing >> changes from the CPH document. >> >> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any suggested changes can >> be added in "suggest" mode (but everyone has "edit" rights): >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPp >> nL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat process and >> then revisit afterward before making it a permanent rather than "interim" >> process. >> >> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, BC and ISPCP, >> but we wanted to start the discussion on this basis, given the short amount >> of time we have for this year. >> >> We look forward to your thoughts. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >> >> >> *Greg Shatan *C: 917-816-6428 <%28917%29%20816-6428> >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 <%28646%29%20845-9428> >> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Thu Feb 23 11:35:58 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 09:35:58 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Rafik, everyone thanks much for getting the ball rolling on this. I would be happy to help Kathy and Ayden if so desired. Folks fan get in touch off list to discuss process and timeline. March 1st in particular is around the corner. Best, Stefi Sent from my iPhone On Feb 23, 2017, at 02:45, Ayden F?rdeline > wrote: Thanks, Rafik. I would be pleased to take the lead drafting our comments on the initial report of the At-Large Review. I think we need to be careful here, people in glass houses and stones and all that... I am tempted to suggest we limit the focus of our comments only to the inaccurate comparisons drawn between the NCUC, NCSG, and ALAC. We should also put forward our opposition to an advisory committee taking on more influence in the policy sphere, particularly with their obscene levels of staff support, as that is a direct threat to our legitimacy and the legitimacy of the GNSO. I don't think we should comment on the rest of the report; surely At-Large is best placed to produce a response which addresses some of the methodological issues within it. And if not, that is to their detriment. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments Local Time: 23 February 2017 12:25 AM UTC Time: 23 February 2017 00:25 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com To: ncsg-pc > Hi everyone, From the Public Comments page, I picked the 3 consultations that seem relevant for us and we had some discussion about. this is kind of planning for us to cover public comments: 1. GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo , deadline 1 Mar 2017 2. At-Large Review: Draft Report, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en, deadline 24 Mar 2017 3. Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en , deadline 10 Apr 2017 the first consultation is quite close, less than 1 week and the topic is important for us. We have an urgent need to get a volunteer to draft a quick comment. I am wondering if Kathy can jump in here. In any case, as PC we will have to act quickly if we get a statement to review. for at-large review, I would like to volunteer Ayden since he followed the discussion closely and read the report. @Ayden can you please start drafting and share the document with the wider NCSG list for consultation? for the last one, related to ICANN accountability work, it will be great to have someone involved in the CCWG to take the lead here. Maybe Matthew? while I am suggesting names among those in PC List, we can try to find other members take the lead or help. in term of planning for future public comments, we can follow upcoming consultations here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en to get an idea about what is coming (dates are of course tentative). there is also this separate page about "operational" public comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments-operational , something to follow more closely. Best, Rafik _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Thu Feb 23 12:49:50 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 10:49:50 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week? And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week? or two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the CSG and NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether should be nomination and/or self nomination. In the interim start work on the process? Matthew On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at > least covering the topic of nomination. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > Hi Matt, > > thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. > I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process > and adjust the whole timeline. > how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for > now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > > I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press us > but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are > non-negotiable with regard to the process. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears >: > > Thanks Rafik > > Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it > and we are running out of time. > > First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which > was not really discussed further. Then we had some general > discussion about the need to do something on the Board > selection process. People voiced their views on different > aspects of the process and there was concern over the > timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others please > jump in as I may have missed some important aspects). Markus > announced he wanted to continue in the role; I announced I was > going to run. Then the CSG proposal for a process was > circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be general agreement > that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > > I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and > timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at > least the initial stages of the process are underway. > > Matthew > > > On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> >> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board >> seat election. >> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not >> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >> intersessional? >> >> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >> >> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our >> expectations. >> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end >> of this week but we do need to be ready. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: "Greg Shatan" > > >> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process >> To: > > >> Cc: >> >> All, >> >> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small >> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this >> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >> NCPH on it. >> >> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >> already started the process without knowing what it is >> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >> >> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following >> for consideration: >> >> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and >> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. >> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and >> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). >> >> A few thoughts and comments: >> >> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks >> (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane >> in the air. >> >> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >> >> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >> nomination period). >> >> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and the >> NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when it >> comes to voting. >> >> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed as >> quickly as possible. Given the unusual circumstances, we >> don't need to use this process as precedent for any >> future process. We just need to get through this >> selection. One approach is for NCSG to respond to the >> draft sent at the end of the Intersessional. However, >> given the gap between that and the bullet-points, it >> might just be better to arrange a call/Adobe Connect >> session ASAP to move the ball forward. >> >> Thanks for reading, >> >> Greg >> >> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures >> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >> for naming the Director was changed from one month to two >> months (briefly) and then six months prior to being >> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in >> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. >> >> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >> >> >> >> >> *Greg Shatan >> *C: 917-816-6428 >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: *Greg Shatan* > > >> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process >> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> >> >> >> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >> >> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >> from the CPH document. >> >> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >> everyone has "edit" rights): >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board Seat >> process and then revisit afterward before making it a >> permanent rather than "interim" process. >> >> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, >> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >> this year. >> >> We look forward to your thoughts. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >> >> *Greg Shatan >> *C: 917-816-6428 >> S: gsshatan >> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From robin at ipjustice.org Thu Feb 23 23:58:08 2017 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:58:08 -0800 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments In-Reply-To: References: <83e7553677b24ea49cf4411683a22075@toast.net> Message-ID: <16D8D790-0A41-4D30-90BF-3B525B2CEA37@ipjustice.org> Absolutely, Rafik. Thank you. I?d like to encourage NCSG PC members to attend the NCSG?s CCWG ACCT discussion on 28 February (next Tuesday at 20:00 UTC ) so we can have a shared understanding of these issues and comments to be filed. Best, Robin > On Feb 22, 2017, at 5:04 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi Ed, > > thanks for the response and suggestion. I added Robin in cc. > I am happy if the group manage to cover any upcoming public comments from CCWG, while the NCSG PC still should follow closely and be ready for review and endorsement. > > @Robin can you please liaise with us for any CCWG ws2 related comments that NCSG needs to submit a statement on. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-23 9:44 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >: > Hi Rafik, > > On the Transparency public comments, as well as other public comments related to the CCWG - Accountability, might I suggest delegating that to Robin's Accountability group. There are going to be about a dozen public comments coming out of the CCWG over the next half year. It might be best to split those off of the general public comments and organise them initially within the NCSG Accountability group. Robin's done a fantastic job organising our CCWG comments in the past - we have a call next Tuesday and that would probably be a good place to get started on it. > > Just a suggestion - as Michael is a co-chair of the Transparency group and is part of the NCSG Accountability group that might be a resource we could use for informational purposes there. > > Thanks for getting on top of all of these comments. > > Best, > > Ed > > > > From: "Rafik Dammak" > > Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2017 12:25 AM > To: "ncsg-pc" > > Subject: [NCSG-PC] Open Public comments > > Hi everyone, > > From the Public Comments page, I picked the 3 consultations that seem relevant for us and we had some discussion about. this is kind of planning for us to cover public comments: > GNSO Initial Report on the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights Protection Mechanisms Policy Development Process, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo , deadline 1 Mar 2017 > At-Large Review: Draft Report, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/atlarge-review-draft-report-2017-02-01-en , deadline 24 Mar 2017 > Recommendations to Improve ICANN's Transparency, https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ccwg-acct-draft-recs-2017-02-21-en , deadline 10 Apr 2017 > the first consultation is quite close, less than 1 week and the topic is important for us. We have an urgent need to get a volunteer to draft a quick comment. I am wondering if Kathy can jump in here. In any case, as PC we will have to act quickly if we get a statement to review. > > for at-large review, I would like to volunteer Ayden since he followed the discussion closely and read the report. @Ayden can you please start drafting and share the document with the wider NCSG list for consultation? > > for the last one, related to ICANN accountability work, it will be great to have someone involved in the CCWG to take the lead here. Maybe Matthew? > > while I am suggesting names among those in PC List, we can try to find other members take the lead or help. > > in term of planning for future public comments, we can follow upcoming consultations here https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/upcoming-2012-02-25-en to get an idea about what is coming (dates are of course tentative). > > there is also this separate page about "operational" public comments https://www.icann.org/public-comments-operational , something to follow more closely. > > Best, > > Rafik > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Fri Feb 24 02:29:38 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:29:38 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> Message-ID: <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Hi, I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. - as many nominees as come forward in a week. - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our act together. - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. avri On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week? > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week? or > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the CSG and > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > In the interim start work on the process? > > Matthew > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at >> least covering the topic of nomination. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process >> and adjust the whole timeline. >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >: >> >> Thanks Rafik >> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it >> and we are running out of time. >> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >> selection process. People voiced their views on different >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >> please jump in as I may have missed some important >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG proposal >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board >>> seat election. >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >>> intersessional? >>> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >>> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our >>> expectations. >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Greg Shatan" >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process >>> To: >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >>> NCPH on it. >>> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >>> already started the process without knowing what it is >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >>> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following >>> for consideration: >>> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). >>> >>> A few thoughts and comments: >>> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane >>> in the air. >>> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >>> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >>> nomination period). >>> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when >>> it comes to voting. >>> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward. >>> >>> Thanks for reading, >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. >>> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Greg Shatan* >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >>> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >>> from the CPH document. >>> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >>> everyone has "edit" >>> rights): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >>> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >>> this year. >>> >>> We look forward to your thoughts. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> + 44 771 2472987 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri at acm.org Fri Feb 24 02:33:55 2017 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 19:33:55 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> Message-ID: Hi, I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. - as many nominees as come forward in a week. - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our act together. - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. avri On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week? > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week? or > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the CSG and > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > In the interim start work on the process? > > Matthew > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at >> least covering the topic of nomination. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process >> and adjust the whole timeline. >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >: >> >> Thanks Rafik >> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it >> and we are running out of time. >> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >> selection process. People voiced their views on different >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >> please jump in as I may have missed some important >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG proposal >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board >>> seat election. >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >>> intersessional? >>> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >>> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our >>> expectations. >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Greg Shatan" >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process >>> To: >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >>> NCPH on it. >>> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >>> already started the process without knowing what it is >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >>> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following >>> for consideration: >>> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). >>> >>> A few thoughts and comments: >>> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane >>> in the air. >>> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >>> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >>> nomination period). >>> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when >>> it comes to voting. >>> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward. >>> >>> Thanks for reading, >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. >>> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Greg Shatan* >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >>> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >>> from the CPH document. >>> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >>> everyone has "edit" >>> rights): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >>> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >>> this year. >>> >>> We look forward to your thoughts. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> + 44 771 2472987 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From egmorris1 at toast.net Fri Feb 24 03:33:36 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2017 20:33:36 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> Message-ID: Thanks Avri. This sounds like a reasonable plan to me and is rather elegant in its simplicity. You actually don't need a lawyer or two to explain it to you, unlike many other aspects of our internal governing systems. :) Best, Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "avri doria" Sent: Friday, February 24, 2017 12:34 AM To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process Hi, I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. - as many nominees as come forward in a week. - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our act together. - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. avri On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week? > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week? or > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the CSG and > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > In the interim start work on the process? > > Matthew > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at >> least covering the topic of nomination. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process >> and adjust the whole timeline. >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >: >> >> Thanks Rafik >> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it >> and we are running out of time. >> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >> selection process. People voiced their views on different >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >> please jump in as I may have missed some important >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG proposal >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >> >> Matthew >> >> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board >>> seat election. >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >>> intersessional? >>> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >>> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our >>> expectations. >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: "Greg Shatan" >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process >>> To: >> > >>> Cc: >>> >>> All, >>> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >>> NCPH on it. >>> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >>> already started the process without knowing what it is >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >>> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following >>> for consideration: >>> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). >>> >>> A few thoughts and comments: >>> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane >>> in the air. >>> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >>> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >>> nomination period). >>> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when >>> it comes to voting. >>> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward. >>> >>> Thanks for reading, >>> >>> Greg >>> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. >>> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: *Greg Shatan* >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection Process >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>> >>> >>> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >>> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >>> from the CPH document. >>> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >>> everyone has "edit" >>> rights): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O 9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>> >>> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >>> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >>> this year. >>> >>> We look forward to your thoughts. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >>> >>> *Greg Shatan >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>> S: gsshatan >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>> >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> + 44 771 2472987 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 07:31:55 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:31:55 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi, Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions I guess we say: - we cannot accept CSG proposal. - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting next week Monday - Our counter-proposal is: - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process - there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. - as many nominees as come forward in a week. - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. Best, Rafik 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria : > Hi, > > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA > > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our > act together. > > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get > our act together. > > avri > > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next week? > > > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next week? or > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the CSG and > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > > > In the interim start work on the process? > > > > Matthew > > > > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG quickly. at > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> >: > >> > >> Hi Matt, > >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this topic. > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the process > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > >> > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears >> >: > >> > >> Thanks Rafik > >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal with it > >> and we are running out of time. > >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, which > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board > >> selection process. People voiced their views on different > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG proposal > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed to be > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a process and > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on board > >>> seat election. > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what or not > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended > >>> intersessional? > >>> > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > >>> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far from our > >>> expectations. > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it by end > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" >>> > > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process > >>> To: >>> > > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a small > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think this > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the > >>> NCPH on it. > >>> > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've > >>> already started the process without knowing what it is > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > >>> > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the following > >>> for consideration: > >>> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between CSG and > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft process. > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the Bylaws), and > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section 11.3(f). > >>> > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > >>> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 weeks > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the airplane > >>> in the air. > >>> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > >>> > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > >>> nomination period). > >>> > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different when > >>> it comes to voting. > >>> > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process agreed > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between that and > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to arrange a > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball forward. > >>> > >>> Thanks for reading, > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO Procedures > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to being > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be updated in > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this error. > >>> > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* >>> > > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board Selection > Process > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > >>> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes > >>> from the CPH document. > >>> > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but > >>> everyone has "edit" > >>> rights): https://docs.google.com/ > document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > >>> RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing> > >>> > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before making it > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > >>> > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of the IPC, > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for > >>> this year. > >>> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > >>> > >>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph- > intersessional2017 > >>> intersessional2017> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> ------------ > >> Matthew Shears > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > >> + 44 771 2472987 > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > > ------------ > > Matthew Shears > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > + 44 771 2472987 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Fri Feb 24 07:33:44 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:33:44 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: Hi all, are we ok with sharing the comments below to council list? please respond asap, the deadline is today 20:00UTC . Best, Rafik 2017-02-23 9:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak : > hi, > > Thanks Kathy for the suggestions! > councilors have until 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB to suggest comments or > edits. so can we review the suggestions and we can submit them to the > council list as input from NCSG. please if you have any other comments or > suggestion, please suggest some wording for the document. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-22 22:40 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman : > >> Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope goes far >> enough -- and I don't see any questions asking about the protections for >> Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois Review Team One to ensure that >> the inquiry was balanced and that everyone knew that Whois investigations, >> disclosures and compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and >> others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair use and fair >> dealing and other forms of treasured communication -- including speech >> critical to governments, corporations, even ICANN! >> >> Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) about whether >> it can be expanded to at least be balanced and not completely one-sided in >> its review (e.g., how much can we give those who complain (IP and LE)? >> *Q**uick note that I have no idea how to take these suggestions to those >> who can process them -- do you? Can you?* >> >> Best, Kathy >> >> >> - >> >> Whether RDS efforts meet the ?legitimate needs of law enforcement, >> promoting consumer trust and safeguarding registrant data.? >> - Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of registrants >> - individuals, noncommercial organizations, small businesses and others, in >> their right to communicate political, personal, research, hobby and >> educational ideas with the privacy granted under national laws and >> consistent with the best free expression traditions of the world. >> - >> >> How RDS current & future recommendations might be improved and >> better coordinated for the benefit of all stakeholders. >> - >> >> Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and Implementation >> - How was the balance achieved in this long and painstaking >> Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments) >> - Has implementation under the direction of ICANN Staff and a >> much smaller team of volunteers fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI >> Working Group >> - >> >> Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes >> - Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants? >> - Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that registrants know >> when their domain names are being investigated (e.g., ensuring that >> registrars contact registrants re: investigation in a timely manner and >> with information about how to respond, and if not ICANN handles this >> function)? >> - How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for harassment >> and "bullshit factor" -- someone reporting something in the Whois record >> that does not impact the reliability of the data or the reachability of the >> registrant (e.g., a student not having a cell phone due to financial >> constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by email, regular mail, >> etc.)? >> - How can a registrant appeal a takedown of his/her/its domain >> name by ICANN Compliance -- and even investigate the details (registrants >> are going in circles trying to understand how their domain names >> disappeared). >> - What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse by those >> filing complaints? How can Compliance let the community know these >> anti-abuse steps are being taken? >> - >> >> Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual obligations >> data >> - >> >> The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol >> - >> >> The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has taken to >> implement WHOIS Recommendations >> - How have changes in law, high level court decision, adoption of >> data protection laws worldwide, etc, changed the legal framework of Whois >> and RDS data since the original Whois Review Team Report and how does this >> impact ICANN's work going forward. >> - >> >> On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really don't have much >> guidance; I don't quite understand exactly what we are going to >> study.....but I like the idea of 6 months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired >> the last one, she is most likely to be able to figure out if this will >> work.... >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance >> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 >> From: James M. Bladel >> To: GNSO Council List >> >> Councilors ? >> >> >> >> Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, which >> consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs on >> guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) >> review. Time is tight, so if you have any comments or edits, please >> respond by *2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB.* >> >> >> >> Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be distributed to >> RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that they are still interested in >> serving on this review team. There is also a proposal to extend the call >> for applications until 7 MAR. >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> >> >> J. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at acm.org Fri Feb 24 14:42:03 2017 From: avri at acm.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 07:42:03 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Message-ID: some minor typo corrections Our counter-proposal is: * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. * as many nominees as come forward in a week. * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions > > I guess we say: > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in > parallel starting next week Monday > - Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against > NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we > get our act together. > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: > > Hi, > > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to > succeed. > > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our > act together. > > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until > we get > our act together. > > avri > > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next > week? > > > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next > week? or > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the > CSG and > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > > > In the interim start work on the process? > > > > Matthew > > > > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG > quickly. at > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >> >>: > >> > >> Hi Matt, > >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this > topic. > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the > process > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > >> > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >> >>: > >> > >> Thanks Rafik > >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal > with it > >> and we are running out of time. > >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, > which > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board > >> selection process. People voiced their views on different > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > proposal > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed > to be > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a > process and > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on > board > >>> seat election. > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what > or not > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended > >>> intersessional? > >>> > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > >>> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far > from our > >>> expectations. > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it > by end > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > >>> >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > Selection Process > >>> To: > >>> >> > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a > small > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think > this > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the > >>> NCPH on it. > >>> > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've > >>> already started the process without knowing what it is > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > >>> > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the > following > >>> for consideration: > >>> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between > CSG and > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft > process. > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > Bylaws), and > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section > 11.3(f). > >>> > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > >>> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 > weeks > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the > airplane > >>> in the air. > >>> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > >>> > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > >>> nomination period). > >>> > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different > when > >>> it comes to voting. > >>> > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process > agreed > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between > that and > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to > arrange a > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball > forward. > >>> > >>> Thanks for reading, > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO > Procedures > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to > being > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be > updated in > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this > error. > >>> > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > >>> >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board > Selection Process > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > >>> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes > >>> from the CPH document. > >>> > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but > >>> everyone has "edit" > >>> rights): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > >>> > > > >>> > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before > making it > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > >>> > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of > the IPC, > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for > >>> this year. > >>> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > >>> > > >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>> > > >> > >> -- > >> ------------ > >> Matthew Shears > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > >> + 44 771 2472987 > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > > ------------ > > Matthew Shears > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > + 44 771 2472987 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 24 20:34:29 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:34:29 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <1c83a309-1edb-93d2-e13a-2cbef3074cb6@mail.utoronto.ca> I don't see why not. I doubt anything will happen, but we will be on the record stephanie On 2017-02-24 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi all, > > are we ok with sharing the comments below to council list? > please respond asap, the deadline is today 20:00UTC . > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-23 9:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >: > > hi, > > Thanks Kathy for the suggestions! > councilors have until 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB to suggest > comments or edits. so can we review the suggestions and we can > submit them to the council list as input from NCSG. please if you > have any other comments or suggestion, please suggest some wording > for the document. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-22 22:40 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman >: > > Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope > goes far enough -- and I don't see any questions asking about > the protections for Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois > Review Team One to ensure that the inquiry was balanced and > that everyone knew that Whois investigations, disclosures and > compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and > others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair > use and fair dealing and other forms of treasured > communication -- including speech critical to governments, > corporations, even ICANN! > > Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) > about whether it can be expanded to at least be balanced and > not completely one-sided in its review (e.g., how much can we > give those who complain (IP and LE)? */Q/**/uick note that I > have no idea how to take these suggestions to those who can > process them -- do you? Can you?/* > > Best, Kathy > > o > > Whether RDS efforts meet the ?legitimate needs of law > enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding > registrant data.? > > o Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of > registrants - individuals, noncommercial > organizations, small businesses and others, in their > right to communicate political, personal, research, > hobby and educational ideas with the privacy granted > under national laws and consistent with the best free > expression traditions of the world. > o > > How RDS current & future recommendations might be > improved and better coordinatedfor the benefit of all > stakeholders. > > o > > Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and > Implementation > > + How was the balance achieved in this long and > painstaking Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments) > + Has implementation under the direction of ICANN > Staff and a much smaller team of volunteers > fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI Working > Group > o > > Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes > > + Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants? > + Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that > registrants know when their domain names are being > investigated (e.g., ensuring that registrars > contact registrants re: investigation in a timely > manner and with information about how to respond, > and if not ICANN handles this function)? > + How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for > harassment and "bullshit factor" -- someone > reporting something in the Whois record that does > not impact the reliability of the data or the > reachability of the registrant (e.g., a student > not having a cell phone due to financial > constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by > email, regular mail, etc.)? > + How can a registrant appeal a takedown of > his/her/its domain name by ICANN Compliance -- and > even investigate the details (registrants are > going in circles trying to understand how their > domain names disappeared). > + What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse > by those filing complaints? How can Compliance let > the community know these anti-abuse steps are > being taken? > o > > Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual > obligations data > > o > > The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol > > o > > The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has > taken to implement WHOIS Recommendations > > o How have changes in law, high level court decision, > adoption of data protection laws worldwide, etc, > changed the legal framework of Whois and RDS data > since the original Whois Review Team Report and how > does this impact ICANN's work going forward. > o > > On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: >> >> Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really >> don't have much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly >> what we are going to study.....but I like the idea of 6 >> months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired the last one, she is >> most likely to be able to figure out if this will work.... >> >> Stephanie >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance >> Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 >> From: James M. Bladel >> >> To: GNSO Council List >> >> >> >> >> Councilors ? >> >> Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, >> which consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs >> on guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the >> upcoming RDS (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have >> any comments or edits, please respond by *2000 UTC this >> Friday 24 FEB.* >> >> Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be >> distributed to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that >> they are still interested in serving on this review team. >> There is also a proposal to extend the call for applications >> until 7 MAR. >> >> Thank you, >> >> J. >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 24 20:54:51 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:54:51 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 In-Reply-To: <42FA91F8-5883-4F5F-B432-09DE61D543E2@icann.org> References: <42FA91F8-5883-4F5F-B432-09DE61D543E2@icann.org> Message-ID: <1c9e5e79-ac61-3e56-7f82-1ad19d55015c@mail.utoronto.ca> Latest item we need to consider.... SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:44:17 +0000 From: Mary Wong To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear Councilors, As requested on the last Council call, staff has prepared a draft letter response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs regarding the proposal to limit the scope of the upcoming ATRT-3. The draft is attached for your review and approval. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong at icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GNSO Council Input on Proposed Limited Scope for ATRT3 - Draft - 24 Feb 2017.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 991913 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From icann at ferdeline.com Fri Feb 24 21:00:22 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:00:22 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 In-Reply-To: <1c9e5e79-ac61-3e56-7f82-1ad19d55015c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <42FA91F8-5883-4F5F-B432-09DE61D543E2@icann.org> <1c9e5e79-ac61-3e56-7f82-1ad19d55015c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I doubt many would support the duplication of work, and the sentiment of the majority would probably err towards a Review team having a limited scope provided everything that should be in scope was in scope? BUT it?s really hard to make this determination when staff prepare such short documents. It would be helpful if there was a simple table with two columns: in scope, out of scope? - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 Local Time: 24 February 2017 6:54 PM UTC Time: 24 February 2017 18:54 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc Latest item we need to consider.... SP -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:44:17 +0000 From: Mary Wong [](mailto:mary.wong at icann.org) To: council at gnso.icann.org [](mailto:council at gnso.icann.org) Dear Councilors, As requested on the last Council call, staff has prepared a draft letter response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs regarding the proposal to limit the scope of the upcoming ATRT-3. The draft is attached for your review and approval. Thanks and cheers Mary Mary Wong Senior Policy Director Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: mary.wong at icann.org Telephone: +1-603-5744889 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Fri Feb 24 21:05:28 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 21:05:28 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: <1c83a309-1edb-93d2-e13a-2cbef3074cb6@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> <1c83a309-1edb-93d2-e13a-2cbef3074cb6@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: <20170224190528.ot6jseru6kmnysmm@tarvainen.info> Agreed. T. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:34:29PM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > I don't see why not. I doubt anything will happen, but we will be on the > record > > stephanie > > > On 2017-02-24 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > are we ok with sharing the comments below to council list? > > please respond asap, the deadline is today 20:00UTC . > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-02-23 9:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: > > > > hi, > > > > Thanks Kathy for the suggestions! > > councilors have until 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB to suggest > > comments or edits. so can we review the suggestions and we can > > submit them to the council list as input from NCSG. please if you > > have any other comments or suggestion, please suggest some wording > > for the document. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-02-22 22:40 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman > >: > > > > Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope > > goes far enough -- and I don't see any questions asking about > > the protections for Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois > > Review Team One to ensure that the inquiry was balanced and > > that everyone knew that Whois investigations, disclosures and > > compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and > > others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair > > use and fair dealing and other forms of treasured > > communication -- including speech critical to governments, > > corporations, even ICANN! > > > > Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) > > about whether it can be expanded to at least be balanced and > > not completely one-sided in its review (e.g., how much can we > > give those who complain (IP and LE)? */Q/**/uick note that I > > have no idea how to take these suggestions to those who can > > process them -- do you? Can you?/* > > > > Best, Kathy > > > > o > > > > Whether RDS efforts meet the ?legitimate needs of law > > enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding > > registrant data.? > > > > o Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of > > registrants - individuals, noncommercial > > organizations, small businesses and others, in their > > right to communicate political, personal, research, > > hobby and educational ideas with the privacy granted > > under national laws and consistent with the best free > > expression traditions of the world. > > o > > > > How RDS current & future recommendations might be > > improved and better coordinatedfor the benefit of all > > stakeholders. > > > > o > > > > Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and > > Implementation > > > > + How was the balance achieved in this long and > > painstaking Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments) > > + Has implementation under the direction of ICANN > > Staff and a much smaller team of volunteers > > fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI Working > > Group > > o > > > > Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes > > > > + Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants? > > + Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that > > registrants know when their domain names are being > > investigated (e.g., ensuring that registrars > > contact registrants re: investigation in a timely > > manner and with information about how to respond, > > and if not ICANN handles this function)? > > + How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for > > harassment and "bullshit factor" -- someone > > reporting something in the Whois record that does > > not impact the reliability of the data or the > > reachability of the registrant (e.g., a student > > not having a cell phone due to financial > > constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by > > email, regular mail, etc.)? > > + How can a registrant appeal a takedown of > > his/her/its domain name by ICANN Compliance -- and > > even investigate the details (registrants are > > going in circles trying to understand how their > > domain names disappeared). > > + What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse > > by those filing complaints? How can Compliance let > > the community know these anti-abuse steps are > > being taken? > > o > > > > Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual > > obligations data > > > > o > > > > The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol > > > > o > > > > The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has > > taken to implement WHOIS Recommendations > > > > o How have changes in law, high level court decision, > > adoption of data protection laws worldwide, etc, > > changed the legal framework of Whois and RDS data > > since the original Whois Review Team Report and how > > does this impact ICANN's work going forward. > > o > > > > On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > > > > > Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really > > > don't have much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly > > > what we are going to study.....but I like the idea of 6 > > > months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired the last one, she is > > > most likely to be able to figure out if this will work.... > > > > > > Stephanie > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance > > > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 > > > From: James M. Bladel > > > > > > To: GNSO Council List > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Councilors ? > > > > > > Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, > > > which consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs > > > on guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the > > > upcoming RDS (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have > > > any comments or edits, please respond by *2000 UTC this > > > Friday 24 FEB.* > > > > > > Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be > > > distributed to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that > > > they are still interested in serving on this review team. > > > There is also a proposal to extend the call for applications > > > until 7 MAR. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > J. From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Fri Feb 24 21:16:33 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 14:16:33 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: RDS Review Update In-Reply-To: <433e29bceb78497aa8cb863531aba37c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> References: <433e29bceb78497aa8cb863531aba37c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: Call me oversensitive, but this sounds like an invitation to drop out....did everyone else get one of these? Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RDS Review Update Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:06:38 +0000 From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez To: Stephanie Perrin CC: reviews Dear Stephanie, We wanted to update you on recent discussions among the leadership of the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) and the Board Working Group on Registration Directory Service who have highlighted concerns with the expected workload and community bandwidth considering all the WHOIS related activities currently underway and the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) Review. This means that the time commitment for RDS Review Team members will be determined by the team?s agreed scope of work and Terms of Reference, and may range from 6 -18 months depending upon whether a full review scope or a limited review scope is adopted. Please let us know if you wish to withdraw your application to be considered for the RDS Review Team because of the unknown time commitment required. We would also like to note that the _RDS Call for Volunteers _ has been reopened and will now close on *7 March 2017*. Thank you, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Fri Feb 24 21:23:12 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:23:12 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: RDS Review Update In-Reply-To: References: <433e29bceb78497aa8cb863531aba37c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG>, Message-ID: I got the same. I think it is just a notification of some changes in the scope of the activities we applied to contribute to. In fact, the call has been reopened to reflect these changes. Or maybe it is just my reluctance to be oversensitive on a Friday night? ;-P ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Stephanie Perrin Inviato: venerd? 24 febbraio 2017 20.16.33 A: ncsg-pc Oggetto: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: RDS Review Update Call me oversensitive, but this sounds like an invitation to drop out....did everyone else get one of these? Stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: RDS Review Update Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:06:38 +0000 From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez To: Stephanie Perrin CC: reviews Dear Stephanie, We wanted to update you on recent discussions among the leadership of the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) and the Board Working Group on Registration Directory Service who have highlighted concerns with the expected workload and community bandwidth considering all the WHOIS related activities currently underway and the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) Review. This means that the time commitment for RDS Review Team members will be determined by the team?s agreed scope of work and Terms of Reference, and may range from 6 -18 months depending upon whether a full review scope or a limited review scope is adopted. Please let us know if you wish to withdraw your application to be considered for the RDS Review Team because of the unknown time commitment required. We would also like to note that the RDS Call for Volunteers has been reopened and will now close on 7 March 2017. Thank you, Jean-Baptiste Deroulez The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu Fri Feb 24 21:23:51 2017 From: Stefania.Milan at EUI.eu (Milan, Stefania) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:23:51 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance In-Reply-To: <20170224190528.ot6jseru6kmnysmm@tarvainen.info> References: <594909A7-6FC3-4822-9B73-22DF1412620B@godaddy.com> <663f1e5a-5236-9cf4-b246-04a000bf6a1e@kathykleiman.com> <1c83a309-1edb-93d2-e13a-2cbef3074cb6@mail.utoronto.ca>, <20170224190528.ot6jseru6kmnysmm@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: Me agreeing too. Stefania ________________________________________ Da: NCSG-PC per conto di Tapani Tarvainen Inviato: venerd? 24 febbraio 2017 20.05.28 A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] RDS Scope Guidance Agreed. T. On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 01:34:29PM -0500, Stephanie Perrin (stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca) wrote: > I don't see why not. I doubt anything will happen, but we will be on the > record > > stephanie > > > On 2017-02-24 00:33, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > are we ok with sharing the comments below to council list? > > please respond asap, the deadline is today 20:00UTC . > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-02-23 9:29 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >: > > > > hi, > > > > Thanks Kathy for the suggestions! > > councilors have until 2000 UTC this Friday 24 FEB to suggest > > comments or edits. so can we review the suggestions and we can > > submit them to the council list as input from NCSG. please if you > > have any other comments or suggestion, please suggest some wording > > for the document. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-02-22 22:40 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman > >: > > > > Tx you, Stephanie for cc'ing me. I don't think this scope > > goes far enough -- and I don't see any questions asking about > > the protections for Registrants. We worked very hard in Whois > > Review Team One to ensure that the inquiry was balanced and > > that everyone knew that Whois investigations, disclosures and > > compilations could hurt those Noncommercial Registrants and > > others who use the DNS for free speech, free expression, fair > > use and fair dealing and other forms of treasured > > communication -- including speech critical to governments, > > corporations, even ICANN! > > > > Accordingly, I look at the list below and wonder (in red) > > about whether it can be expanded to at least be balanced and > > not completely one-sided in its review (e.g., how much can we > > give those who complain (IP and LE)? */Q/**/uick note that I > > have no idea how to take these suggestions to those who can > > process them -- do you? Can you?/* > > > > Best, Kathy > > > > o > > > > Whether RDS efforts meet the ?legitimate needs of law > > enforcement, promoting consumer trust and safeguarding > > registrant data.? > > > > o Whether RDS effort protect the legitimate rights of > > registrants - individuals, noncommercial > > organizations, small businesses and others, in their > > right to communicate political, personal, research, > > hobby and educational ideas with the privacy granted > > under national laws and consistent with the best free > > expression traditions of the world. > > o > > > > How RDS current & future recommendations might be > > improved and better coordinatedfor the benefit of all > > stakeholders. > > > > o > > > > Privacy and Proxy Services Accreditation Issues and > > Implementation > > > > + How was the balance achieved in this long and > > painstaking Working Group? (with over 10,000 comments) > > + Has implementation under the direction of ICANN > > Staff and a much smaller team of volunteers > > fulfilled (or not) the goals of the PPSAI Working > > Group > > o > > > > Compliance enforcement actions, structure, and processes > > > > + Where are the Due Process Protections for registrants? > > + Where is ICANN Compliance in ensuring that > > registrants know when their domain names are being > > investigated (e.g., ensuring that registrars > > contact registrants re: investigation in a timely > > manner and with information about how to respond, > > and if not ICANN handles this function)? > > + How does ICANN Compliance evaluate complaints for > > harassment and "bullshit factor" -- someone > > reporting something in the Whois record that does > > not impact the reliability of the data or the > > reachability of the registrant (e.g., a student > > not having a cell phone due to financial > > constraints, but otherwise COMPLETELY reachable by > > email, regular mail, etc.)? > > + How can a registrant appeal a takedown of > > his/her/its domain name by ICANN Compliance -- and > > even investigate the details (registrants are > > going in circles trying to understand how their > > domain names disappeared). > > + What steps can Compliance take to throw out abuse > > by those filing complaints? How can Compliance let > > the community know these anti-abuse steps are > > being taken? > > o > > > > Availability of transparent enforcement of contractual > > obligations data > > > > o > > > > The value and timing of RDAP as a replacement protocol > > > > o > > > > The effectiveness of any other steps ICANN Org has > > taken to implement WHOIS Recommendations > > > > o How have changes in law, high level court decision, > > adoption of data protection laws worldwide, etc, > > changed the legal framework of Whois and RDS data > > since the original Whois Review Team Report and how > > does this impact ICANN's work going forward. > > o > > > > On 2/20/2017 6:15 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > > > > > Please note this is our last kick at this can. I really > > > don't have much guidance; I don't quite understand exactly > > > what we are going to study.....but I like the idea of 6 > > > months. Copying Kathy who co-chaired the last one, she is > > > most likely to be able to figure out if this will work.... > > > > > > Stephanie > > > > > > > > > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > > > Subject: [council] RDS Scope Guidance > > > Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 19:31:56 +0000 > > > From: James M. Bladel > > > > > > To: GNSO Council List > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Councilors ? > > > > > > Attached, please find a draft RDS Scope Guidance document, > > > which consolidates the feedback received from all SOs and ACs > > > on guidance/recommendations to limit the scope of the > > > upcoming RDS (WHOIS) review. Time is tight, so if you have > > > any comments or edits, please respond by *2000 UTC this > > > Friday 24 FEB.* > > > > > > Once completed, the RDS Scope Guidance document will be > > > distributed to RDS Review Team applicants, to confirm that > > > they are still interested in serving on this review team. > > > There is also a proposal to extend the call for applications > > > until 7 MAR. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > J. _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. From avri at apc.org Fri Feb 24 22:52:15 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 15:52:15 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: RDS Review Update In-Reply-To: References: <433e29bceb78497aa8cb863531aba37c@PMBX112-E1-VA-2.PEXCH112.ICANN.ORG> Message-ID: hi, change of conditions requires notification. i would not take it personally. avri On 24-Feb-17 14:16, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > > Call me oversensitive, but this sounds like an invitation to drop > out....did everyone else get one of these? > > Stephanie > > > > -------- Forwarded Message -------- > Subject: RDS Review Update > Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 09:06:38 +0000 > From: Jean-Baptiste Deroulez > To: Stephanie Perrin > CC: reviews > > > > Dear Stephanie, > > > > We wanted to update you on recent discussions among the leadership of > the ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees (SO/AC) and > the Board Working Group on Registration Directory Service who have > highlighted concerns with the expected workload and community > bandwidth considering all the WHOIS related activities currently > underway and the upcoming RDS (WHOIS) Review. > > > > This means that the time commitment for RDS Review Team members will > be determined by the team?s agreed scope of work and Terms of > Reference, and may range from 6 -18 months depending upon whether a > full review scope or a limited review scope is adopted. > > > > Please let us know if you wish to withdraw your application to be > considered for the RDS Review Team because of the unknown time > commitment required. > > > > We would also like to note that the _RDS Call for Volunteers > _ has been > reopened and will now close on *7 March 2017*. > > > > Thank you, > > > > Jean-Baptiste Deroulez > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri at apc.org Sat Feb 25 02:02:03 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 19:02:03 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 In-Reply-To: References: <42FA91F8-5883-4F5F-B432-09DE61D543E2@icann.org> <1c9e5e79-ac61-3e56-7f82-1ad19d55015c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: Hi, The bylaws define the scope for an ATRT. It is not for the GNSO Council or any of the other SOAC or the Board to limit that work. What is appropriate is exactly what the letter says. It is up to ATRT3 to decide what it needs to do. I cannot imagine them not taking the advice seriously. avri On 24-Feb-17 14:00, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > I doubt many would support the duplication of work, and the sentiment > of the majority would probably err towards a Review team having a > limited scope provided everything that should be in scope was in > scope? BUT it?s really hard to make this determination when staff > prepare such short documents. It would be helpful if there was a > simple table with two columns: in scope, out of scope? > > - Ayden > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter >> on proposed limited scope of ATRT3 >> Local Time: 24 February 2017 6:54 PM >> UTC Time: 24 February 2017 18:54 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc >> >> >> Latest item we need to consider.... >> >> SP >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: >> [council] FOR REVIEW & APPROVAL: Draft letter on proposed limited >> scope of ATRT3 >> Date: >> Fri, 24 Feb 2017 18:44:17 +0000 >> From: >> Mary Wong >> To: >> council at gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> Dear Councilors, >> >> >> >> As requested on the last Council call, staff has prepared a draft >> letter response to the CCWG-Accountability co-chairs regarding the >> proposal to limit the scope of the upcoming ATRT-3. The draft is >> attached for your review and approval. >> >> >> >> Thanks and cheers >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> >> >> Mary Wong >> >> Senior Policy Director >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Email: mary.wong at icann.org >> >> Telephone: +1-603-5744889 >> >> >> >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 25 03:10:46 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:10:46 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Questionable ICANN statistics In-Reply-To: References: <9C0DACD3-FFBC-4016-97E4-DCEAE862C6F8@gmail.com> Message-ID: If there is rough consensus that this is the best path for us to take, I am happy to draft up something for the Ombudsperson to review, but this strikes me as perhaps too formal a path to take? It would seem that the website's analytics don't work, and that is problematic ? however, is it something we need to action upon? Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Questionable ICANN statistics Local Time: 23 February 2017 11:18 AM UTC Time: 23 February 2017 11:18 From: egmorris1 at TOAST.NET To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU It certainly would be appropriate to have the Ombudsman or the new Complaints Officer (scheduled to be appointed within the next two weeks) investigate. Sent from my iPhone On 23 Feb 2017, at 11:12, Michael Oghia wrote: I agree, this is really concerning. If you all agree that it merits further investigation, perhaps the NCSG should submit an official statement (to Goran and staff). Best, -Michael On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 2:03 PM, dorothy g wrote: This is serious as this kind of data generation/analytics should be managed by not very complicated software. It will be very interesting to find out why this is not working. best On Thu, Feb 23, 2017 at 8:34 AM, William Drake wrote: Send a note to Goran On Feb 23, 2017, at 02:09, Ayden F?rdeline <[icann at FERDELINE.COM](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)> wrote: [See this email exchange](http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/atlarge-review-wp/2017-February/000374.html). ICANN staff claimed a public document on the ICANN website had been downloaded zero times since it was uploaded. A member of the At-Large community corrected the record, noting that they had downloaded that file several times. I too had downloaded it. So it seems we should be very careful taking ICANN at its word when it comes to statistics. I cannot help but think back to last week at the Intersessional when the SVP Contractual Compliance and Consumer Safeguards spoke about how the Compliance pages were the most visited on the ICANN website. I hate to be so cynical, but maybe the analytics function just doesn't work ? like much of the ICANN website? - Ayden -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 25 03:15:49 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:15:49 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Compliance questions - any response? In-Reply-To: <039b5e21-8516-34b6-56e2-7a372dada88a@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <039b5e21-8516-34b6-56e2-7a372dada88a@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I look forward to reading the responses to your questions. I certainly hope they come soon. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Compliance questions - any response? Local Time: 23 February 2017 3:03 AM UTC Time: 23 February 2017 03:03 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Not yet... he sent a message saying he would respond to outstanding questions, to the entire list. That is all I have heard, will follow up in a few days. Cheers STephanie On 2017-02-22 16:09, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: You asked many great questions of Jamie Hedlund during the compliance session at the Intersessional, Stephanie, all of which from memory were taken on notice. Out of curiosity, has there been a reply to any of them? I don't recall seeing one but maybe I missed it... - Ayden _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Sat Feb 25 03:49:20 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 20:49:20 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document In-Reply-To: <934f06cc-8aab-d31d-db88-e8c2cdc5a74c@mail.utoronto.ca> References: <934f06cc-8aab-d31d-db88-e8c2cdc5a74c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: The meetings of the RDS PDP WG and the PPSAI IRT will be running in parallel at ICANN 58 in Copenhagen on the Saturday. This is very unfortunate, particularly if the law enforcement subgroup will be unveiling the below-mentioned proposal during this session... Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document Local Time: 22 February 2017 6:41 PM UTC Time: 22 February 2017 18:41 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca To: ncsg-pc , Kathy Kleiman Just a heads up: What, me worry? This is the implementation committee charged with putting into place the PPSAI policy we worked so hard on two years ago. The Public Safety Working Group, you may recall, was not happy about the fact that we gave proxy rights to non-individuals (eg. groups and associations). keeping an eye on this as I am on the group, but will need reinforcements shortly. cheers stephanie -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:29:34 +0000 From: Nick Shorey [](mailto:nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk) To: Amy Bivins [](mailto:amy.bivins at icann.org) CC: Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org [](mailto:Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org) Hi Amy, Thanks for the email, and very timely as I was also planning to send an update through - you beat me to it! We're about two weeks behind on our schedule, but we have a good group from the GAC / PSWG deliberating this issue, and I'm pleased to report we are already making good progress on some principles and structure, which we look forward to discussing with the broader IRT. I'm sure you can appreciate the level of detailed discussion around elements to the disclosure framework. Regarding timings, it looks likely that the full GAC will wish to take the opportunity to review the work of our little team, before sharing it back with yourselves. As such, I don't think we will be in a position to share the product of our discussions prior to ICANN58, but hopefully we can bring something to a session on the 11th which we can discuss. I will keep you updated on this, and will discuss a suitable time to meet on 11th with my colleagues from the GAC and PSWG. I hope that helps. Nick Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc. Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance Department for Culture, Media & Sport HM Government | United Kingdom Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk Tel: +44 (0)7710 025 626 Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin Web: www.nickshorey.com On 21 February 2017 at 17:13, Amy Bivins wrote: Hi Nick, I hope you are well! I wanted to check in to see how things are going on this project. If there is anything that I can do to help please let me know. Also, I want to invite you and your PSWG colleagues to meet with the IRT about this project while we are all together in Copenhagen. The IRT has a half-day meeting scheduled for Saturday, 11 May, for the full afternoon time slot (1:45 to 6:00). Are you and your colleagues available to meet with the IRT to discuss your work on this so far and any issues, questions or open items? The IRT?s schedule on the 11th is flexible enough to accommodate any time you and your colleagues are available during the afternoon. If you can suggest a time I?ll add it to the agenda. Thanks so much, and we look forward to seeing you in Copenhagen! Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: [+1 (202) 249-7551](tel:%28202%29%20249-7551) Fax: [+1 (202) 789-0104](tel:%28202%29%20789-0104) Email: amy.bivins at icann.org www.icann.org From: Nick Shorey [mailto:nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk] Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 1:32 PM To: Amy Bivins Cc: Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org Subject: [Ext] Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] [Feedback requested by 13 January] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document Hi everyone, On the section around requested timeline, prior to circulation of this document I'd proposed the below timeline to the PSWG team working on a draft framework proposal. It's largely the same (maybe a couple of weeks' difference), but I'm mindful to manage expectations within this group on how quickly we might be able to progress. PSWG Disclosure Framework Drafting Team Timeline: i. Team onboarding, task outline and background research - Jan '17 ii. Framework concepts - Feb '17 iii. Draft text - Feb '17 iiii. Review (PSWG & GAC) - March '17 v. Submission to IRT LEA Sub-Group - March '17 Kind regards, Nick Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc. Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance Department for Culture, Media & Sport HM Government | United Kingdom Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk Tel: [+44 (0)7710 025 626](tel:+44%207710%20025626) Skype: nick.shorey Twitter: @nickshorey LinkedIn: [www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin[linkedin.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_in_nicklinkedin&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-TplkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=1ROHakUPjSwkTAi-6UPkQZyCtDMFUFvdNTqR3f45LtA&s=4v-P3hf2mpkM8a2Tiod3FmUAOeOPzHfaaCK03kY25H4&e=) Web: [www.nickshorey.com[nickshorey.com]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nickshorey.com&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-TplkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=1ROHakUPjSwkTAi-6UPkQZyCtDMFUFvdNTqR3f45LtA&s=2YC4RdxOngI-PdiIJx2vpotHig5_emNi1WVdW3tt9VA&e=) On 9 January 2017 at 17:09, Amy Bivins wrote: Hello, All, Thank you for volunteering for the Privacy and Proxy Service Provider Accreditation Program IRT?LEA framework subteam. Attached, you will find a discussion document that includes requested topics/guidelines for the GAC Public Safety Working Group discussions surrounding the development of a proposed framework for LEA requests to privacy and proxy service providers. We plan to request that the PSWG create a first draft proposal to be discussed and refined within this subteam before presentation to the full IRT. We are requesting your feedback by the end of this week, 13 January, on this document. We aim to send this document, once finalized, to the PSWG next week. Please send all feedback to this list and if you have questions or comments please don?t hesitate to email the list or contact me directly. Best, Amy Amy E. Bivins Registrar Policy Services Manager Registrar Services and Industry Relations Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct: [+1 (202) 249-7551](tel:%28202%29%20249-7551) Fax: [+1 (202) 789-0104](tel:%28202%29%20789-0104) Email: amy.bivins at icann.org [www.icann.org[icann.org]](https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org&d=DgMFaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=uerz4ckt1v4Qhbv-TplkjKTey9bgtdWrvLyZDu0mXuk&m=1ROHakUPjSwkTAi-6UPkQZyCtDMFUFvdNTqR3f45LtA&s=ZvRPYpX8LqSiuUt9IrQYUbXJe_4Dle5N3FTvGBCRpr4&e=) _______________________________________________ Gdd_pp_irt_lea mailing list Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd_pp_irt_lea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Sat Feb 25 05:11:42 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 22:11:42 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document In-Reply-To: References: <934f06cc-8aab-d31d-db88-e8c2cdc5a74c@mail.utoronto.ca> Message-ID: I don't think they are going to unveil it, not ready yet, apparently..... But I agree, terrible timing. SP On 2017-02-24 20:49, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > The meetings of the RDS PDP WG and the PPSAI IRT will be running in > parallel at ICANN 58 in Copenhagen on the Saturday. This is very > unfortunate, particularly if the law enforcement subgroup will be > unveiling the below-mentioned proposal during this session... > > Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework >> Discussion Document >> Local Time: 22 February 2017 6:41 PM >> UTC Time: 22 February 2017 18:41 >> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca >> To: ncsg-pc , Kathy Kleiman >> >> >> >> Just a heads up: What, me worry? This is the implementation >> committee charged with putting into place the PPSAI policy we worked >> so hard on two years ago. The Public Safety Working Group, you may >> recall, was not happy about the fact that we gave proxy rights to >> non-individuals (eg. groups and associations). >> >> keeping an eye on this as I am on the group, but will need >> reinforcements shortly. >> >> cheers stephanie >> >> >> >> -------- Forwarded Message -------- >> Subject: >> Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document >> Date: >> Wed, 22 Feb 2017 12:29:34 +0000 >> From: >> Nick Shorey >> To: >> Amy Bivins >> CC: >> Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org >> >> >> >> Hi Amy, >> >> Thanks for the email, and very timely as I was also planning to send >> an update through - you beat me to it! >> >> We're about two weeks behind on our schedule, but we have a good >> group from the GAC / PSWG deliberating this issue, and I'm pleased to >> report we are already making good progress on some principles and >> structure, which we look forward to discussing with the broader IRT. >> I'm sure you can appreciate the level of detailed discussion around >> elements to the disclosure framework. >> >> Regarding timings, it looks likely that the full GAC will wish to >> take the opportunity to review the work of our little team, before >> sharing it back with yourselves. >> >> As such, I don't think we will be in a position to share the product >> of our discussions prior to ICANN58, but hopefully we can bring >> something to a session on the 11th which we can discuss. >> >> I will keep you updated on this, and will discuss a suitable time to >> meet on 11th with my colleagues from the GAC and PSWG. >> >> I hope that helps. >> >> Nick >> >> *Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.* >> Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance >> Department for Culture, Media & Sport >> HM Government | United Kingdom >> >> Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk >> Tel: +44 (0)7710 025 626 >> Skype: nick.shorey >> Twitter: @nickshorey >> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin >> >> Web: www.nickshorey.com >> >> On 21 February 2017 at 17:13, Amy Bivins > > wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> >> I hope you are well! I wanted to check in to see how things are >> going on this project. If there is anything that I can do to help >> please let me know. >> >> >> Also, I want to invite you and your PSWG colleagues to meet with >> the IRT about this project while we are all together in >> Copenhagen. The IRT has a half-day meeting scheduled for >> Saturday, 11 May, for the full afternoon time slot (1:45 to >> 6:00). Are you and your colleagues available to meet with the IRT >> to discuss your work on this so far and any issues, questions or >> open items? >> >> >> The IRT?s schedule on the 11^th is flexible enough to accommodate >> any time you and your colleagues are available during the >> afternoon. If you can suggest a time I?ll add it to the agenda. >> >> >> Thanks so much, and we look forward to seeing you in Copenhagen! >> >> >> Best, >> >> Amy >> >> >> *Amy E. Bivins* >> >> Registrar Policy Services Manager >> >> Registrar Services and Industry Relations >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 >> >> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 >> >> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org >> >> www.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> *From:*Nick Shorey [mailto:nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk >> ] >> *Sent:* Friday, January 13, 2017 1:32 PM >> *To:* Amy Bivins > >> *Cc:* Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org >> *Subject:* [Ext] Re: [Gdd_pp_irt_lea] [Feedback requested by 13 >> January] PP Disclosure Framework Discussion Document >> >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> >> On the section around requested timeline, prior to circulation of >> this document I'd proposed the below timeline to the PSWG team >> working on a draft framework proposal. It's largely the same >> (maybe a couple of weeks' difference), but I'm mindful to manage >> expectations within this group on how quickly we might be able to >> progress. >> >> >> PSWG Disclosure Framework Drafting Team Timeline: >> >> >> i. Team onboarding, task outline and background research - Jan '17 >> >> ii. Framework concepts - Feb '17 >> >> iii. Draft text - Feb '17 >> >> iiii. Review (PSWG & GAC) - March '17 >> >> v. Submission to IRT LEA Sub-Group - March '17 >> >> >> Kind regards, >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> *Nick Shorey BA(Hons) MSc.* >> >> Senior Policy Advisor | Global Internet Governance >> >> Department for Culture, Media & Sport >> >> HM Government | United Kingdom >> >> >> Email: nick.shorey at culture.gov.uk >> >> Tel: +44 (0)7710 025 626 >> >> Skype: nick.shorey >> >> Twitter: @nickshorey >> >> LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/nicklinkedin[linkedin.com] >> >> >> Web: www.nickshorey.com[nickshorey.com] >> >> >> >> On 9 January 2017 at 17:09, Amy Bivins > > wrote: >> >> Hello, All, >> >> >> Thank you for volunteering for the Privacy and Proxy Service >> Provider Accreditation Program IRT?LEA framework subteam. >> >> >> Attached, you will find a discussion document that includes >> requested topics/guidelines for the GAC Public Safety Working >> Group discussions surrounding the development of a proposed >> framework for LEA requests to privacy and proxy service >> providers. We plan to request that the PSWG create a first >> draft proposal to be discussed and refined within this >> subteam before presentation to the full IRT. >> >> >> *We are requesting your feedback by the end of this week, 13 >> January,* on this document. We aim to send this document, >> once finalized, to the PSWG next week. Please send all >> feedback to this list and if you have questions or comments >> please don?t hesitate to email the list or contact me directly. >> >> >> Best, >> >> Amy >> >> >> >> *Amy E. Bivins* >> >> Registrar Policy Services Manager >> >> Registrar Services and Industry Relations >> >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> >> Direct: +1 (202) 249-7551 >> >> Fax: +1 (202) 789-0104 >> >> Email: amy.bivins at icann.org >> >> www.icann.org[icann.org] >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gdd_pp_irt_lea mailing list >> Gdd_pp_irt_lea at icann.org >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gdd_pp_irt_lea >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avri at apc.org Sat Feb 25 16:34:50 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2017 09:34:50 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Message-ID: one thought. you may want to schedule a joint interview of the top 2 before second round. with the whole house invited so that what they tell one is what they tell the other. avri On 24-Feb-17 07:42, avri doria wrote: > > > some minor typo corrections > > Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get > our act together. > * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions >> >> I guess we say: >> - we cannot accept CSG proposal. >> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in >> parallel starting next week Monday >> - Our counter-proposal is: >> >> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >> * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >> * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against >> NOTA >> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we >> get our act together. >> * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >> get our act together. >> >> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: >> >> Hi, >> >> I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal >> >> - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >> >> - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to >> succeed. >> >> - as many nominees as come forward in a week. >> >> - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >> >> - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader >> against NOTA >> >> - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our >> act together. >> >> - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until >> we get >> our act together. >> >> avri >> >> On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: >> > >> > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or >> > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative >> > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next >> week? >> > >> > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next >> week? or >> > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the >> CSG and >> > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether >> > should be nomination and/or self nomination. >> > >> > In the interim start work on the process? >> > >> > Matthew >> > >> > >> > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> >> >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG >> quickly. at >> >> least covering the topic of nomination. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >> >> >>: >> >> >> >> Hi Matt, >> >> >> >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this >> topic. >> >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the >> process >> >> and adjust the whole timeline. >> >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for >> >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >> >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >> >> >> >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press >> >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are >> >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Rafik >> >> >> >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >> >> >>: >> >> >> >> Thanks Rafik >> >> >> >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal >> with it >> >> and we are running out of time. >> >> >> >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, >> which >> >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general >> >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >> >> selection process. People voiced their views on different >> >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >> >> please jump in as I may have missed some important >> >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >> >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG >> proposal >> >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed >> to be >> >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> >> >> >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a >> process and >> >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at >> >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >> >> >> >> Matthew >> >> >> >> >> >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >> >>> >> >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on >> board >> >>> seat election. >> >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what >> or not >> >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >> >>> intersessional? >> >>> >> >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >> >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >> >>> >> >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far >> from our >> >>> expectations. >> >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it >> by end >> >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >> >>> >> >>> Best, >> >>> >> >>> Rafik >> >>> >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > >> >>> >> >> >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >> >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat >> Selection Process >> >>> To: > >> >>> > >> >> >>> Cc: >> >>> >> >>> All, >> >>> >> >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >> >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a >> small >> >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think >> this >> >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >> >>> NCPH on it. >> >>> >> >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >> >>> already started the process without knowing what it is >> >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >> >>> >> >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >> >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the >> following >> >>> for consideration: >> >>> >> >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between >> CSG and >> >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft >> process. >> >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >> >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >> >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >> >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >> >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >> >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the >> Bylaws), and >> >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section >> 11.3(f). >> >>> >> >>> A few thoughts and comments: >> >>> >> >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >> >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 >> weeks >> >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the >> airplane >> >>> in the air. >> >>> >> >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >> >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >> >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >> >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >> >>> >> >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >> >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >> >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >> >>> nomination period). >> >>> >> >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and >> >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different >> when >> >>> it comes to voting. >> >>> >> >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process >> agreed >> >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >> >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >> >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get >> >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >> >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >> >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between >> that and >> >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to >> arrange a >> >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball >> forward. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks for reading, >> >>> >> >>> Greg >> >>> >> >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >> >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO >> Procedures >> >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >> >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to >> >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to >> being >> >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be >> updated in >> >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >> >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this >> error. >> >>> >> >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> *Greg Shatan >> >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >> >>> S: gsshatan >> >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> > > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > >> >>> > >> >> >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >> >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board >> Selection Process >> >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >> >>> >> >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >> >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >> >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >> >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >> >>> from the CPH document. >> >>> >> >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >> >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >> >>> everyone has "edit" >> >>> rights): >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >> >> >>> >> > > >> >>> >> >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >> >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before >> making it >> >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >> >>> >> >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of >> the IPC, >> >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >> >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >> >>> this year. >> >>> >> >>> We look forward to your thoughts. >> >>> >> >>> Thanks! >> >>> >> >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >> >>> >> >>> *Greg Shatan >> >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >> >>> S: gsshatan >> >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> >> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> > > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >> >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >> >> >>> > > >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >> >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > >> >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >>> > > >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ------------ >> >> Matthew Shears >> >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> >> + 44 771 2472987 >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> > -- >> > ------------ >> > Matthew Shears >> > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> > + 44 771 2472987 >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NCSG-PC mailing list >> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From avri at apc.org Mon Feb 27 07:33:58 2017 From: avri at apc.org (avri doria) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 00:33:58 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <664C77AF-1F6B-4B26-B285-B71DB3CEC2F6@davecake.net> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> <664C77AF-1F6B-4B26-B285-B71DB3CEC2F6@davecake.net> Message-ID: <55b828b4-f639-7fa6-825b-82f66f65a22e@apc.org> hi, > Not sure if there is time for a third round, Depends on how long we allow for voting. should not take all that long for 13 people to vote. 24, 48, 72 hours? avri On 26-Feb-17 22:52, David Cake wrote: > I think an interview with candidates and the whole house sounds good to me, and preferably prior to the first round. > > Generally I think Avri?s proposal is good on most aspects. Not sure if there is time for a third round, but I suspect we are in deadliock if we get to that point anyway. > > David > >> On 25 Feb 2017, at 10:34 pm, avri doria wrote: >> >> >> one thought. you may want to schedule a joint interview of the top 2 >> before second round. >> >> with the whole house invited so that what they tell one is what they >> tell the other. >> >> avri >> >> >> On 24-Feb-17 07:42, avri doria wrote: >>> >>> some minor typo corrections >>> >>> Our counter-proposal is: >>> >>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two >>> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader >>> against NOTA >>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get >>> our act together. >>> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >>> get our act together. >>> >>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions >>>> >>>> I guess we say: >>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal. >>>> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in >>>> parallel starting next week Monday >>>> - Our counter-proposal is: >>>> >>>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >>>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>>> * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >>>> * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against >>>> NOTA >>>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we >>>> get our act together. >>>> * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >>>> get our act together. >>>> >>>> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Rafik >>>> >>>> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal >>>> >>>> - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>>> >>>> - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to >>>> succeed. >>>> >>>> - as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>>> >>>> - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >>>> >>>> - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader >>>> against NOTA >>>> >>>> - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our >>>> act together. >>>> >>>> - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until >>>> we get >>>> our act together. >>>> >>>> avri >>>> >>>> On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: >>>>> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or >>>>> not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative >>>>> version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next >>>> week? >>>>> And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next >>>> week? or >>>>> two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the >>>> CSG and >>>>> NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether >>>>> should be nomination and/or self nomination. >>>>> >>>>> In the interim start work on the process? >>>>> >>>>> Matthew >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>> >>>>>> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG >>>> quickly. at >>>>>> least covering the topic of nomination. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>> >>>>>> >>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Matt, >>>>>> >>>>>> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this >>>> topic. >>>>>> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the >>>> process >>>>>> and adjust the whole timeline. >>>>>> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for >>>>>> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >>>>>> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >>>>>> >>>>>> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press >>>>>> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are >>>>>> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best, >>>>>> >>>>>> Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears >>> >>>>>> >>: >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks Rafik >>>>>> >>>>>> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal >>>> with it >>>>>> and we are running out of time. >>>>>> >>>>>> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, >>>> which >>>>>> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general >>>>>> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >>>>>> selection process. People voiced their views on different >>>>>> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >>>>>> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >>>>>> please jump in as I may have missed some important >>>>>> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >>>>>> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG >>>> proposal >>>>>> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed >>>> to be >>>>>> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a >>>> process and >>>>>> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at >>>>>> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on >>>> board >>>>>>> seat election. >>>>>>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what >>>> or not >>>>>>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >>>>>>> intersessional? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points >>>>>>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far >>>> from our >>>>>>> expectations. >>>>>>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it >>>> by end >>>>>>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: "Greg Shatan" >>> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >>>>>>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat >>>> Selection Process >>>>>>> To: >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >>>>>>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a >>>> small >>>>>>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think >>>> this >>>>>>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the >>>>>>> NCPH on it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've >>>>>>> already started the process without knowing what it is >>>>>>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >>>>>>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the >>>> following >>>>>>> for consideration: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between >>>> CSG and >>>>>>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft >>>> process. >>>>>>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a >>>>>>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from >>>>>>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >>>>>>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >>>>>>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats >>>>>>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the >>>> Bylaws), and >>>>>>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section >>>> 11.3(f). >>>>>>> A few thoughts and comments: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >>>>>>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 >>>> weeks >>>>>>> (just to go through). Talk about building the >>>> airplane >>>>>>> in the air. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >>>>>>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >>>>>>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >>>>>>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we >>>>>>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >>>>>>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >>>>>>> nomination period). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and >>>>>>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different >>>> when >>>>>>> it comes to voting. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> E. We should figure out how to get this process >>>> agreed >>>>>>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >>>>>>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >>>>>>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get >>>>>>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >>>>>>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >>>>>>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between >>>> that and >>>>>>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to >>>> arrange a >>>>>>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball >>>> forward. >>>>>>> Thanks for reading, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but >>>>>>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO >>>> Procedures >>>>>>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline >>>>>>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to >>>>>>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to >>>> being >>>>>>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be >>>> updated in >>>>>>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >>>>>>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this >>>> error. >>>>>>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Greg Shatan >>>>>>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>>>>>> S: gsshatan >>>>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>> From: *Greg Shatan* >>> >>>>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >>>>>>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board >>>> Selection Process >>>>>>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>>> >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >>>>>>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >>>>>>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. >>>>>>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes >>>>>>> from the CPH document. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >>>>>>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but >>>>>>> everyone has "edit" >>>>>>> rights): >>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>>> >>>> >>> > >>>>>>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >>>>>>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before >>>> making it >>>>>>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of >>>> the IPC, >>>>>>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on >>>>>>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for >>>>>>> this year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We look forward to your thoughts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Greg Shatan >>>>>>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>>>>>> S: gsshatan >>>>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>> >>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >>>>>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>>> >>>>>>> >>> > >>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>>> >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> > >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>>>>> >>> > >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------ >>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 >>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ------------ >>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >>>>> + 44 771 2472987 >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> --- >>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 16:05:52 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 23:05:52 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Message-ID: Hi Avri, thanks for the suggestion, so we have now: - we cannot accept CSG proposal. - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting (Wednesday?) Our counter-proposal is: * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. * as many nominees as come forward in a week. * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole house. * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? Best, Rafik 2017-02-24 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria : > > > some minor typo corrections > > Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get > our act together. > * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions > > > > I guess we say: > > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in > > parallel starting next week Monday > > - Our counter-proposal is: > > > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against > > NOTA > > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we > > get our act together. > > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > > get our act together. > > > > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >>: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > > > > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > > > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to > > succeed. > > > > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > > > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > > > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > > against NOTA > > > > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get > our > > act together. > > > > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until > > we get > > our act together. > > > > avri > > > > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are > considering/or > > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next > > week? > > > > > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next > > week? or > > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the > > CSG and > > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > > > > > In the interim start work on the process? > > > > > > Matthew > > > > > > > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG > > quickly. at > > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Rafik > > >> > > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > > > >> >>: > > >> > > >> Hi Matt, > > >> > > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this > > topic. > > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the > > process > > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for > > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > > >> > > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to > press > > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which > are > > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Rafik > > >> > > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > > > >> >>: > > >> > > >> Thanks Rafik > > >> > > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal > > with it > > >> and we are running out of time. > > >> > > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, > > which > > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some > general > > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board > > >> selection process. People voiced their views on different > > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others > > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the > > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > > proposal > > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed > > to be > > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > > >> > > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a > > process and > > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at > > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > > >> > > >> Matthew > > >> > > >> > > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > >>> Hi everyone, > > >>> > > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on > > board > > >>> seat election. > > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what > > or not > > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended > > >>> intersessional? > > >>> > > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable > points > > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > > >>> > > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far > > from our > > >>> expectations. > > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it > > by end > > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Rafik > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> > > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > > Selection Process > > >>> To: > > > >>> > >> > > >>> Cc: > > >>> > > >>> All, > > >>> > > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish > > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a > > small > > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think > > this > > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of > the > > >>> NCPH on it. > > >>> > > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've > > >>> already started the process without knowing what it > is > > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > > >>> > > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures > > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the > > following > > >>> for consideration: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between > > CSG and > > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft > > process. > > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a > > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts > from > > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section > > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats > > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > > Bylaws), and > > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section > > 11.3(f). > > >>> > > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > > >>> > > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go > > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 > > weeks > > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the > > airplane > > >>> in the air. > > >>> > > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any > > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is > > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > > >>> > > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we > > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP > > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > > >>> nomination period). > > >>> > > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and > > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different > > when > > >>> it comes to voting. > > >>> > > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process > > agreed > > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as > > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to > get > > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between > > that and > > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to > > arrange a > > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball > > forward. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for reading, > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, > but > > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO > > Procedures > > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws > deadline > > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to > > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to > > being > > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be > > updated in > > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this > > error. > > >>> > > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> *Greg Shatan > > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > > >>> S: gsshatan > > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > > > >>> > >> > > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board > > Selection Process > > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > > >>> > > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed > > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the > > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties > House. > > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes > > >>> from the CPH document. > > >>> > > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any > > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but > > >>> everyone has "edit" > > >>> rights): > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_ > RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing> > > >>> > > RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>> > > >>> > > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board > > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before > > making it > > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > > >>> > > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of > > the IPC, > > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion > on > > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have > for > > >>> this year. > > >>> > > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> > > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > > >>> > > >>> *Greg Shatan > > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > > >>> S: gsshatan > > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > > > >>> intersessional2017 > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ------------ > > >> Matthew Shears > > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > >> + 44 771 2472987 > > > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > -- > > > ------------ > > > Matthew Shears > > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > > + 44 771 2472987 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Feb 27 16:17:13 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 14:17:13 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Message-ID: I think this looks OK. On 27/02/2017 14:05, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Avri, > > thanks for the suggestion, > > so we have now: > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel > starting (Wednesday?) > > Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two > * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole house. > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get > our act together. > * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. > can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? > Best, > > Rafik > 2017-02-24 > 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: > > > > some minor typo corrections > > Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between > top two > > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until > we get > our act together. > * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions > > > > I guess we say: > > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in > > parallel starting next week Monday > > - Our counter-proposal is: > > > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against > > NOTA > > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we > > get our act together. > > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk > until we > > get our act together. > > > > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response > with CSG. > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > > > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >>: > > > > Hi, > > > > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > > > > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > > > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to > > succeed. > > > > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > > > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between > top two > > > > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > > against NOTA > > > > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until > we get our > > act together. > > > > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until > > we get > > our act together. > > > > avri > > > > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are > considering/or > > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an > alternative > > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end > of next > > week? > > > > > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next > > week? or > > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the > > CSG and > > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG > whether > > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > > > > > In the interim start work on the process? > > > > > > Matthew > > > > > > > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > >> Hi all, > > >> > > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG > > quickly. at > > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Rafik > > >> > > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > > > > > > >> >>>: > > >> > > >> Hi Matt, > > >> > > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments > on this > > topic. > > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the > > process > > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 > candidates for > > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other > candidates? we > > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > > >> > > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a > mean to press > > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects > which are > > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Rafik > > >> > > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > > > > > > >> > >>>: > > >> > > >> Thanks Rafik > > >> > > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal > > with it > > >> and we are running out of time. > > >> > > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the > meeting, > > which > > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had > some general > > >> discussion about the need to do something on the > Board > > >> selection process. People voiced their views on > different > > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything > (others > > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to > continue in the > > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > > proposal > > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There > seemed > > to be > > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not > ideal. > > >> > > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a > > process and > > >> timeline for nominations and getting that > announced, so at > > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > > >> > > >> Matthew > > >> > > >> > > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > > >>> Hi everyone, > > >>> > > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the > discussion on > > board > > >>> seat election. > > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what > > or not > > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who > attended > > >>> intersessional? > > >>> > > >>> We also need to outline what are our > non-negotiable points > > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > > >>> > > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far > > from our > > >>> expectations. > > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can > have it > > by end > > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > > >>> > > >>> Best, > > >>> > > >>> Rafik > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > > > > > >>> > >>> > > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > > Selection Process > > >>> To: > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Cc: > > >>> > > >>> All, > > >>> > > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to > finish > > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, > and a > > small > > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I > think > > this > > >>> is the only active mailing list with both > sides of the > > >>> NCPH on it. > > >>> > > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, > and we've > > >>> already started the process without knowing > what it is > > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > > >>> > > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH > procedures > > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the > > following > > >>> for consideration: > > >>> > > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between > > CSG and > > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft > > process. > > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff > Memo with a > > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant > excerpts from > > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with > Section > > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process > for Seats > > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > > Bylaws), and > > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section > > 11.3(f). > > >>> > > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > > >>> > > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both > develop and go > > >>> through a process that is contemplated to > take 21 > > weeks > > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the > > airplane > > >>> in the air. > > >>> > > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not > come to any > > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether > Staff is > > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > > >>> > > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already > done so, we > > >>> should put out a call for any other > nominations ASAP > > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > > >>> nomination period). > > >>> > > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH > process and > > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly > different > > when > > >>> it comes to voting. > > >>> > > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process > > agreed > > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this > process as > > >>> precedent for any future process. We just > need to get > > >>> through this selection. One approach is for > NCSG to > > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between > > that and > > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to > > arrange a > > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball > > forward. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for reading, > > >>> > > >>> Greg > > >>> > > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got > here, but > > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO > > Procedures > > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the > Bylaws deadline > > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one > month to > > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months > prior to > > being > > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be > > updated in > > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points > repeated this > > error. > > >>> > > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little > time > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> *Greg Shatan > > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > > >>> S: gsshatan > > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > > > > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board > > Selection Process > > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > > >>> > > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a > proposed > > >>> interim Board Selection Process based > closely on the > > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted > Parties House. > > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, > showing changes > > >>> from the CPH document. > > >>> > > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, > where any > > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" > mode (but > > >>> everyone has "edit" > > >>> rights): > > > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> We would hope to use this for the current > 2017 Board > > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before > > making it > > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > > >>> > > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of > > the IPC, > > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the > discussion on > > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time > we have for > > >>> this year. > > >>> > > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > > >>> > > >>> Thanks! > > >>> > > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP > Intersessional Teams) > > >>> > > >>> *Greg Shatan > > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > > >>> S: gsshatan > > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > >>> > > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > > > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > > >> > > >>>https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> ------------ > > >> Matthew Shears > > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > >> + 44 771 2472987 > > > > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > -- > > > ------------ > > > Matthew Shears > > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > > + 44 771 2472987 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > > --- > > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus > software. > > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > >NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Mon Feb 27 16:27:05 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 09:27:05 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> Message-ID: <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> In terms of timeline, I'd suggest we try to get nominations in before Copenhagen and perhaps use ICANN 58 as a time to get to know the candidates better, perhaps invite them to our PC or regular SG meeting etc. Let's use the less than perfect timing to our advantage! Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM To: "avri at acm.org" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process Hi Avri, thanks for the suggestion, so we have now: - we cannot accept CSG proposal. - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting (Wednesday?) Our counter-proposal is: * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. * as many nominees as come forward in a week. * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole house. * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? Best, Rafik 2017-02-24 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria : some minor typo corrections Our counter-proposal is: * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. * as many nominees as come forward in a week. * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions > > I guess we say: > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in > parallel starting next week Monday > - Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against > NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we > get our act together. > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: > > Hi, > > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to > succeed. > > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our > act together. > > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until > we get > our act together. > > avri > > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next > week? > > > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next > week? or > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the > CSG and > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > > > In the interim start work on the process? > > > > Matthew > > > > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG > quickly. at > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >> >>: > >> > >> Hi Matt, > >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this > topic. > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the > process > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > >> > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >> >>: > >> > >> Thanks Rafik > >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal > with it > >> and we are running out of time. > >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, > which > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board > >> selection process. People voiced their views on different > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > proposal > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed > to be > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a > process and > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on > board > >>> seat election. > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what > or not > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended > >>> intersessional? > >>> > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > >>> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far > from our > >>> expectations. > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it > by end > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > >>> >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > Selection Process > >>> To: > >>> >> > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a > small > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think > this > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the > >>> NCPH on it. > >>> > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've > >>> already started the process without knowing what it is > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > >>> > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the > following > >>> for consideration: > >>> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between > CSG and > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft > process. > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > Bylaws), and > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section > 11.3(f). > >>> > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > >>> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 > weeks > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the > airplane > >>> in the air. > >>> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > >>> > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > >>> nomination period). > >>> > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different > when > >>> it comes to voting. > >>> > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process > agreed > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between > that and > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to > arrange a > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball > forward. > >>> > >>> Thanks for reading, > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO > Procedures > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to > being > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be > updated in > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this > error. > >>> > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > >>> >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board > Selection Process > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > >>> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes > >>> from the CPH document. > >>> > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but > >>> everyone has "edit" > >>> rights): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O 9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > >>> > > > >>> > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before > making it > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > >>> > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of > the IPC, > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for > >>> this year. > >>> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > >>> > > >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>> > > >> > >> -- > >> ------------ > >> Matthew Shears > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > >> + 44 771 2472987 > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > > ------------ > > Matthew Shears > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > + 44 771 2472987 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Mon Feb 27 16:54:59 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:54:59 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? Message-ID: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> Dear all, Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half an hour with each of them. -- Tapani Tarvainen From egmorris1 at toast.net Mon Feb 27 17:03:08 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:03:08 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: 1. I think it would be helpful at the outset to get a better understanding as to how their SG's are organised / structured. We're quite familiar with the NCPH structure and those of our CSG colleagues. Not as sure about the CPH and constituent proponents. 2. With registrars, the DNA, so called Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals : why and what are they thinking? 3. With registers, the imposition of new gTLDs on legacy gTLDs when contracts are renegotiated...why and how? Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear all, > > Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries > and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half > an hour with each of them. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 27 18:41:11 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:41:11 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> A strong +1 to the second question... I'm curious as to the pitch that is being made to the registrars. - Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? Local Time: 27 February 2017 3:03 PM UTC Time: 27 February 2017 15:03 From: egmorris1 at toast.net To: Tapani Tarvainen NCSG-PC 1. I think it would be helpful at the outset to get a better understanding as to how their SG's are organised / structured. We're quite familiar with the NCPH structure and those of our CSG colleagues. Not as sure about the CPH and constituent proponents. 2. With registrars, the DNA, so called Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals : why and what are they thinking? 3. With registers, the imposition of new gTLDs on legacy gTLDs when contracts are renegotiated...why and how? Ed Sent from my iPhone > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Dear all, > > Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries > and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half > an hour with each of them. > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mshears at cdt.org Mon Feb 27 18:43:27 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (matthew shears) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 16:43:27 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Yep - all good questions On 27/02/2017 16:41, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > A strong +1 to the second question... I'm curious as to the pitch that > is being made to the registrars. > > - Ayden > > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? >> Local Time: 27 February 2017 3:03 PM >> UTC Time: 27 February 2017 15:03 >> From: egmorris1 at toast.net >> To: Tapani Tarvainen >> NCSG-PC >> >> 1. I think it would be helpful at the outset to get a better >> understanding as to how their SG's are organised / structured. We're >> quite familiar with the NCPH structure and those of our CSG >> colleagues. Not as sure about the CPH and constituent proponents. >> >> 2. With registrars, the DNA, so called Healthy Domains, UDRP for >> Copyright proposals : why and what are they thinking? >> >> 3. With registers, the imposition of new gTLDs on legacy gTLDs when >> contracts are renegotiated...why and how? >> >> Ed >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Tapani Tarvainen >> wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries >> > and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half >> > an hour with each of them. >> > >> > -- >> > Tapani Tarvainen >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NCSG-PC mailing list >> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- ------------ Matthew Shears Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) + 44 771 2472987 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From icann at ferdeline.com Mon Feb 27 18:43:57 2017 From: icann at ferdeline.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Ayden_F=C3=A9rdeline?=) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 11:43:57 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi, Could someone please outline what the interview process for the 14th Board seat typically consists of? Who asks the questions, who sees the questions before they are asked, and how much time is scheduled for the interview(s) to take place? Many thanks, Ayden -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process Local Time: 27 February 2017 2:27 PM UTC Time: 27 February 2017 14:27 From: egmorris1 at toast.net To: avri at acm.org , Rafik Dammak ncsg-pc In terms of timeline, I'd suggest we try to get nominations in before Copenhagen and perhaps use ICANN 58 as a time to get to know the candidates better, perhaps invite them to our PC or regular SG meeting etc. Let's use the less than perfect timing to our advantage! Ed ------ From: "Rafik Dammak" Sent: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM To: "avri at acm.org" Cc: "ncsg-pc" Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process Hi Avri, thanks for the suggestion, so we have now: - we cannot accept CSG proposal. - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel starting (Wednesday?) Our counter-proposal is: * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. * as many nominees as come forward in a week. * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole house. * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? Best, Rafik 2017-02-24 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria : some minor typo corrections Our counter-proposal is: * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. * as many nominees as come forward in a week. * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader against NOTA * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get our act together. * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we get our act together. On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions > > I guess we say: > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in > parallel starting next week Monday > - Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against > NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we > get our act together. > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: > > Hi, > > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to > succeed. > > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get our > act together. > > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until > we get > our act together. > > avri > > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > > > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are considering/or > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next > week? > > > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next > week? or > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the > CSG and > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > > > > In the interim start work on the process? > > > > Matthew > > > > > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> Hi all, > >> > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG > quickly. at > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > >> >>: > >> > >> Hi Matt, > >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this > topic. > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the > process > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates for > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > >> > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to press > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which are > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > >> >>: > >> > >> Thanks Rafik > >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal > with it > >> and we are running out of time. > >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, > which > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some general > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board > >> selection process. People voiced their views on different > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > proposal > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed > to be > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a > process and > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so at > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >>> Hi everyone, > >>> > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on > board > >>> seat election. > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what > or not > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended > >>> intersessional? > >>> > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable points > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > >>> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far > from our > >>> expectations. > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it > by end > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > >>> > >>> Best, > >>> > >>> Rafik > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > >>> >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > Selection Process > >>> To: > >>> >> > >>> Cc: > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a > small > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think > this > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of the > >>> NCPH on it. > >>> > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and we've > >>> already started the process without knowing what it is > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > >>> > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the > following > >>> for consideration: > >>> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between > CSG and > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft > process. > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with a > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts from > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for Seats > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > Bylaws), and > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section > 11.3(f). > >>> > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > >>> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 > weeks > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the > airplane > >>> in the air. > >>> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > >>> > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, we > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > >>> nomination period). > >>> > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process and > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different > when > >>> it comes to voting. > >>> > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process > agreed > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to get > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between > that and > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to > arrange a > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball > forward. > >>> > >>> Thanks for reading, > >>> > >>> Greg > >>> > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, but > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO > Procedures > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws deadline > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month to > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to > being > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be > updated in > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this > error. > >>> > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > >>> >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board > Selection Process > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > >>> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties House. > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing changes > >>> from the CPH document. > >>> > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode (but > >>> everyone has "edit" > >>> rights): > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGum4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > > >>> > > > >>> > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before > making it > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > >>> > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of > the IPC, > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion on > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have for > >>> this year. > >>> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > >>> > >>> Thanks! > >>> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional Teams) > >>> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >>> S: gsshatan > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > > >>> > > >>> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > >>> > > >> > >> -- > >> ------------ > >> Matthew Shears > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > >> [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987) > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > > ------------ > > Matthew Shears > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > > [+ 44 771 2472987](tel:%2B%2044%20771%202472987) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mpsilvavalent at gmail.com Mon Feb 27 20:09:00 2017 From: mpsilvavalent at gmail.com (Martin Pablo Silva Valent) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:09:00 -0300 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Taking in account the past month, I agree those are the questions in my mind. +1 > On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:43 PM, matthew shears wrote: > > Yep - all good questions > > On 27/02/2017 16:41, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >> A strong +1 to the second question... I'm curious as to the pitch that is being made to the registrars. >> >> - Ayden >> >> >>> -------- Original Message -------- >>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? >>> Local Time: 27 February 2017 3:03 PM >>> UTC Time: 27 February 2017 15:03 >>> From: egmorris1 at toast.net >>> To: Tapani Tarvainen >>> NCSG-PC >>> >>> 1. I think it would be helpful at the outset to get a better understanding as to how their SG's are organised / structured. We're quite familiar with the NCPH structure and those of our CSG colleagues. Not as sure about the CPH and constituent proponents. >>> >>> 2. With registrars, the DNA, so called Healthy Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals : why and what are they thinking? >>> >>> 3. With registers, the imposition of new gTLDs on legacy gTLDs when contracts are renegotiated...why and how? >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: >>> > >>> > Dear all, >>> > >>> > Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries >>> > and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half >>> > an hour with each of them. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Tapani Tarvainen >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > NCSG-PC mailing list >>> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > + 44 771 2472987 > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Mon Feb 27 22:32:01 2017 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 15:32:01 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Proposed edits in red below. - Kathy On 2/27/2017 1:09 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > Taking in account the past month, I agree those are the questions in > my mind. +1 > >> On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:43 PM, matthew shears > > wrote: >> >> Yep - all good questions >> >> >> On 27/02/2017 16:41, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: >>> A strong +1 to the second question... I'm curious as to the pitch >>> that is being made to the registrars. >>> >>> - Ayden >>> >>> >>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? >>>> Local Time: 27 February 2017 3:03 PM >>>> UTC Time: 27 February 2017 15:03 >>>> From: egmorris1 at toast.net >>>> To: Tapani Tarvainen >>>> NCSG-PC >>>> >>>> 1. I think it would be helpful at the outset to get a better >>>> understanding as to how their SG's are organised / structured. >>>> We're quite familiar with the NCPH structure and those of our CSG >>>> colleagues. Not as sure about the CPH and constituent proponents. >>>> >>>> 2. With registrars , registries, the DNA, so called Healthy >>>> Domains, UDRP for Copyright proposals : why and what are they >>>> thinking? How do the registrars feel about it? >>>> >>>> 3. With registers, the imposition of new gTLDs obligations, e.g., >>>> the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy on legacy gTLDs when >>>> contracts are renegotiated...why and how? >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Tapani Tarvainen >>>> wrote: >>>> > >>>> > Dear all, >>>> > >>>> > Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries >>>> > and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half >>>> > an hour with each of them. >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Tapani Tarvainen >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> >> -- >> ------------ >> Matthew Shears >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> + 44 771 2472987 >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 03:04:06 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:04:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi, with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can we follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them to get involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? do we have anything pressing related to RDS/whois to discuss and coordinate with registrars? maybe raising the topic about "DNS abuse mitigation" and getting their understanding since this is another area where compliance is used in particular by LEA ( https://schedule.icann.org/event/9now/cross-community-session-towards-effective-dns-abuse-mitigation-prevention-mitigation-response ). Best, Rafik 2017-02-28 5:32 GMT+09:00 Kathy Kleiman : > Proposed edits in red below. > - Kathy > > On 2/27/2017 1:09 PM, Martin Pablo Silva Valent wrote: > > Taking in account the past month, I agree those are the questions in my > mind. +1 > > On Feb 27, 2017, at 1:43 PM, matthew shears wrote: > > Yep - all good questions > > On 27/02/2017 16:41, Ayden F?rdeline wrote: > > A strong +1 to the second question... I'm curious as to the pitch that is > being made to the registrars. > > - Ayden > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? > Local Time: 27 February 2017 3:03 PM > UTC Time: 27 February 2017 15:03 > From: egmorris1 at toast.net > To: Tapani Tarvainen > > NCSG-PC > > 1. I think it would be helpful at the outset to get a better understanding > as to how their SG's are organised / structured. We're quite familiar with > the NCPH structure and those of our CSG colleagues. Not as sure about the > CPH and constituent proponents. > > 2. With registrars , registries, the DNA, so called Healthy Domains, UDRP > for Copyright proposals : why and what are they thinking? How do the > registrars feel about it? > > 3. With registers, the imposition of new gTLDs obligations, e.g., the > Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy on legacy gTLDs when contracts are > renegotiated...why and how? > > Ed > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:55, Tapani Tarvainen > wrote: > > > > Dear all, > > > > Do you have suggestions for topics when we meet registries > > and registrars (separate meetings)? We'll have about half > > an hour with each of them. > > > > -- > > Tapani Tarvainen > > _______________________________________________ > > NCSG-PC mailing list > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > ------------ > Matthew Shears > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)+ 44 771 2472987 <+44%207712%20472987> > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing listNCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.ishttps://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue Feb 28 03:41:03 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:41:03 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: > > with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can we follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them to get involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? So more multi-stakeholder private agreements outside of ICANN, meaning all we do here is compromise to set industry floors which are then used to build maximalist protection policies threatening free speech with no guarantee of due process or appropriate privacy protection through private agreements with some sort of multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the real action is going to be the downmarket private agreements who in their right mind will volunteer to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct threat to the ICANN model with the logical end result being progressives calling for government intervention to prevent industry cartels from setting market conditions that threaten every value the NCSG was created to protect. Need I suggest that the day we have to call on the governments of the world to protect our free speech rights online is the day there no longer is such a thing. Of course when what NCSG member Rebecca McKinnon so brilliantly called Facebookistan, when applied to governance of social media by terms of service boilerplate agreements, is extended in a modified fashion to the entire dns there may be no other option. The process stinks, the policy stinks and this group needs to stand up for true multi-stakeholder principles and demand industry standards, floors and ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside of it. Otherwise the Donuts - MPAA agreement is the beginning of the end of this model of internet governance. No compromise, no surrender. Ed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 03:44:18 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:44:18 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: Hi Ed, I was basically suggesting to bring it to ICANN space. we are in violent agreement. Best, Rafik 2017-02-28 10:41 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > > > with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can we > follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them to get > involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? > > > So more multi-stakeholder private agreements outside of ICANN, meaning all > we do here is compromise to set industry floors which are then used to > build maximalist protection policies threatening free speech with no > guarantee of due process or appropriate privacy protection through private > agreements with some sort of multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the > real action is going to be the downmarket private agreements who in their > right mind will volunteer to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct > threat to the ICANN model with the logical end result being progressives > calling for government intervention to prevent industry cartels from > setting market conditions that threaten every value the NCSG was created to > protect. Need I suggest that the day we have to call on the governments of > the world to protect our free speech rights online is the day there no > longer is such a thing. Of course when what NCSG member Rebecca McKinnon so > brilliantly called Facebookistan, when applied to governance of social > media by terms of service boilerplate agreements, is extended in a > modified fashion to the entire dns there may be no other option. > > The process stinks, the policy stinks and this group needs to stand up for > true multi-stakeholder principles and demand industry standards, floors and > ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside of it. Otherwise the Donuts - > MPAA agreement is the beginning of the end of this model of internet > governance. > > No compromise, no surrender. > > Ed > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kathy at kathykleiman.com Tue Feb 28 04:38:36 2017 From: kathy at kathykleiman.com (Kathy Kleiman) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2017 21:38:36 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> Message-ID: <5acbf303-9a32-a2b6-27a8-19097b2d0bcd@kathykleiman.com> Maybe. Don't we have a bylaw that says ICANN is to stay out of the content space? We have never wanted ICANN to become the regulator of speech and content, and with the transition, I thought that we affirmed that. So we may be in a Catch-22: we don't want private agreements to bypass speech/expression protections, and this type of regulation does not belong within ICANN. If that is the case, now what do we do? Best, Kathy On 2/27/2017 8:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: > Hi Ed, > > I was basically suggesting to bring it to ICANN space. we are in > violent agreement. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-28 10:41 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris >: > > >> >> with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can >> we follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them >> to get involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? > > So more multi-stakeholder private agreements outside of ICANN, > meaning all we do here is compromise to set industry floors which > are then used to build maximalist protection policies threatening > free speech with no guarantee of due process or appropriate > privacy protection through private agreements with some sort of > multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the real action is going > to be the downmarket private agreements who in their right mind > will volunteer to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct > threat to the ICANN model with the logical end result being > progressives calling for government intervention to prevent > industry cartels from setting market conditions that threaten > every value the NCSG was created to protect. Need I suggest that > the day we have to call on the governments of the world to protect > our free speech rights online is the day there no longer is such a > thing. Of course when what NCSG member Rebecca McKinnon so > brilliantly called Facebookistan, when applied to governance of > social media by terms of service boilerplate agreements, is > extended in a modified fashion to the entire dns there may be no > other option. > > The process stinks, the policy stinks and this group needs to > stand up for true multi-stakeholder principles and demand industry > standards, floors and ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside > of it. Otherwise the Donuts - MPAA agreement is the beginning of > the end of this model of internet governance. > > No compromise, no surrender. > > Ed > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue Feb 28 06:53:35 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 04:53:35 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: <5acbf303-9a32-a2b6-27a8-19097b2d0bcd@kathykleiman.com> References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> <5acbf303-9a32-a2b6-27a8-19097b2d0bcd@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <840EE922-A737-4048-84BB-4AB0A964875D@toast.net> It truly is a tricky situation, Kathy. It will be interesting to see how the Registrars respond to our queries in this area. The more sophisticated Registrars, and those who are paid to represent them, will make exactly the argument you are making. A step back from that, and more convincing from my point of view, will be the argument that freedom of contract should allow parties to make such deals outside the ICANN framework. Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Feb 2017, at 02:38, Kathy Kleiman wrote: > > Maybe. Don't we have a bylaw that says ICANN is to stay out of the content space? We have never wanted ICANN to become the regulator of speech and content, and with the transition, I thought that we affirmed that. So we may be in a Catch-22: we don't want private agreements to bypass speech/expression protections, and this type of regulation does not belong within ICANN. > If that is the case, now what do we do? > Best, Kathy >> On 2/27/2017 8:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> Hi Ed, >> >> I was basically suggesting to bring it to ICANN space. we are in violent agreement. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-28 10:41 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : >>> >>>> with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can we follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them to get involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? >>> >>> So more multi-stakeholder private agreements outside of ICANN, meaning all we do here is compromise to set industry floors which are then used to build maximalist protection policies threatening free speech with no guarantee of due process or appropriate privacy protection through private agreements with some sort of multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the real action is going to be the downmarket private agreements who in their right mind will volunteer to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct threat to the ICANN model with the logical end result being progressives calling for government intervention to prevent industry cartels from setting market conditions that threaten every value the NCSG was created to protect. Need I suggest that the day we have to call on the governments of the world to protect our free speech rights online is the day there no longer is such a thing. Of course when what NCSG member Rebecca McKinnon so brilliantly called Facebookistan, when applied to governance of social media by terms of service boilerplate agreements, is extended in a modified fashion to the entire dns there may be no other option. >>> >>> The process stinks, the policy stinks and this group needs to stand up for true multi-stakeholder principles and demand industry standards, floors and ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside of it. Otherwise the Donuts - MPAA agreement is the beginning of the end of this model of internet governance. >>> >>> No compromise, no surrender. >>> >>> Ed >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafik.dammak at gmail.com Tue Feb 28 08:09:06 2017 From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com (Rafik Dammak) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 15:09:06 +0900 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> Message-ID: Hi, we can suggest nomination period between Wednesday 1st March and Friday 10th March, assuming that all candidates will be in Copenhagen. Best, Rafik 2017-02-27 23:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > In terms of timeline, I'd suggest we try to get nominations in before > Copenhagen and perhaps use ICANN 58 as a time to get to know the candidates > better, perhaps invite them to our PC or regular SG meeting etc. Let's use > the less than perfect timing to our advantage! > > Ed > > > > ------------------------------ > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > *Sent*: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM > *To*: "avri at acm.org" > *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > Selection Process > > Hi Avri, > > thanks for the suggestion, > > so we have now: > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel > starting (Wednesday?) > > Our counter-proposal is: > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two > * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole > house. > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > against NOTA > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get > our act together. > * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > get our act together. > > we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. > can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? > > Best, > > Rafik > 2017-02-24 > 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >> >> >> >> some minor typo corrections >> >> Our counter-proposal is: >> >> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top >> two > > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader >> against NOTA >> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get >> our act together. >> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >> get our act together. >> >> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions >> > >> > I guess we say: >> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. >> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in >> > parallel starting next week Monday >> > - Our counter-proposal is: >> > >> > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >> > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >> > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >> > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >> > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against >> > NOTA >> > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we >> > get our act together. >> > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >> > get our act together. >> > >> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. >> > >> > Best, >> > >> > Rafik >> > >> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: >> >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal >> > >> > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >> > >> > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to >> > succeed. >> > >> > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. >> > >> > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >> > >> > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader >> > against NOTA >> > >> > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get >> our >> > act together. >> > >> > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until >> > we get >> > our act together. >> > >> > avri >> > >> > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: >> > > >> > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are >> considering/or >> > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative >> > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next >> > week? >> > > >> > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next >> > week? or >> > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the >> > CSG and >> > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether >> > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. >> > > >> > > In the interim start work on the process? >> > > >> > > Matthew >> > > >> > > >> > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> > >> Hi all, >> > >> >> > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG >> > quickly. at >> > >> least covering the topic of nomination. >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> >> > >> Rafik >> > >> >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak > > >> > >> > >>>: >> > >> >> > >> Hi Matt, >> > >> >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this >> > topic. >> > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the >> > process >> > >> and adjust the whole timeline. >> > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates >> for >> > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >> > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >> > >> >> > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to >> press >> > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which >> are >> > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >> > >> >> > >> Best, >> > >> >> > >> Rafik >> > >> >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears > > >> > >> >>: >> > >> >> > >> Thanks Rafik >> > >> >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal >> > with it >> > >> and we are running out of time. >> > >> >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, >> > which >> > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some >> general >> > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >> > >> selection process. People voiced their views on >> different >> > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >> > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >> > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important >> > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >> > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG >> > proposal >> > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed >> > to be >> > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >> > >> >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a >> > process and >> > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so >> at >> > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >> > >> >> > >> Matthew >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >> > >>> Hi everyone, >> > >>> >> > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on >> > board >> > >>> seat election. >> > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what >> > or not >> > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >> > >>> intersessional? >> > >>> >> > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable >> points >> > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >> > >>> >> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far >> > from our >> > >>> expectations. >> > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it >> > by end >> > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >> > >>> >> > >>> Best, >> > >>> >> > >>> Rafik >> > >>> >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" > > >> > >>> > gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >> > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat >> > Selection Process >> > >>> To: > > >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> Cc: >> > >>> >> > >>> All, >> > >>> >> > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >> > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a >> > small >> > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think >> > this >> > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of >> the >> > >>> NCPH on it. >> > >>> >> > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and >> we've >> > >>> already started the process without knowing what it >> is >> > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >> > >>> >> > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >> > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the >> > following >> > >>> for consideration: >> > >>> >> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between >> > CSG and >> > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft >> > process. >> > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with >> a >> > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts >> from >> > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >> > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >> > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for >> Seats >> > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the >> > Bylaws), and >> > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section >> > 11.3(f). >> > >>> >> > >>> A few thoughts and comments: >> > >>> >> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >> > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 >> > weeks >> > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the >> > airplane >> > >>> in the air. >> > >>> >> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >> > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >> > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >> > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >> > >>> >> > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, >> we >> > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >> > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >> > >>> nomination period). >> > >>> >> > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process >> and >> > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different >> > when >> > >>> it comes to voting. >> > >>> >> > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process >> > agreed >> > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >> > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >> > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to >> get >> > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >> > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >> > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between >> > that and >> > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to >> > arrange a >> > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball >> > forward. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks for reading, >> > >>> >> > >>> Greg >> > >>> >> > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, >> but >> > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO >> > Procedures >> > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws >> deadline >> > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month >> to >> > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to >> > being >> > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be >> > updated in >> > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >> > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this >> > error. >> > >>> >> > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> *Greg Shatan >> > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >> > >>> S: gsshatan >> > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> > > > > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* > > >> > >>> > > >> >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >> > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board >> > Selection Process >> > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >> > >>> >> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >> > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >> > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties >> House. >> > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing >> changes >> > >>> from the CPH document. >> > >>> >> > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >> > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode >> (but >> > >>> everyone has "edit" >> > >>> rights): >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu >> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >> > > um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing> >> > >>> >> > > m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >> > > um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>> >> > >>> >> > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >> > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before >> > making it >> > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >> > >>> >> > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of >> > the IPC, >> > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion >> on >> > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have >> for >> > >>> this year. >> > >>> >> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks! >> > >>> >> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional >> Teams) >> > >>> >> > >>> *Greg Shatan >> > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 >> > >>> S: gsshatan >> > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >> > >> > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >> > > > > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >> > >> > >>> > mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >> > > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list >> > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > > >> > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > >> > >>> > > > >> > >> >> > >> -- >> > >> ------------ >> > >> Matthew Shears >> > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> > >> + 44 771 2472987 >> > >> > >> >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> > >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > >> > > -- >> > > ------------ >> > > Matthew Shears >> > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >> > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >> > > + 44 771 2472987 >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > NCSG-PC mailing list >> > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > >> > >> > >> > --- >> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > NCSG-PC mailing list >> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue Feb 28 08:31:49 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 01:31:49 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: <5acbf303-9a32-a2b6-27a8-19097b2d0bcd@kathykleiman.com> References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> <5acbf303-9a32-a2b6-27a8-19097b2d0bcd@kathykleiman.com> Message-ID: <12057e4944dd4e32b8726234b938ca4d@toast.net> It truly is a tricky situation, Kathy. It will be interesting to see how the registrars respond to our queries in this area. The more sophisticated registrars, and those who are paid to represent them, will make exactly the argument you are making. A step back from that, and more convincing from my point of view, will be the argument that freedom of contract should allow parties to make such deals outside the ICANN framework. Of course, we also have the new ICANN Bylaws to contend with. Milton referred us earlier in the week to an excellent paper in progress by Anmarie Bridy entitled ?Notice and Takedown in the Domain Name System: ICANN?s Ambivalent Drift Into Online Content Regulation (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2920805 ). I quote from that paper: ?No matter how vehemently ICANN officials insist that they are minding the limits of their mission, the truth of the matter is that ICANN knowingly created a contractual architecture for the new gTLDs that supports an unprecedented program of private, DNS-based content regulation on behalf of copyright holders and, potentially, other ?trusted? parties. Moreover, in creating that architecture, ICANN did nothing to secure any procedural protections or uniform substantive standards for domain name registrants who find themselves subject to this new form of DNS regulation. That omission should be a red flag for those who worry that ICANN?s newly minted independence from the U.S. government will make its internal governance more susceptible to capture by powerful commercial and governmental interests.? Yes, Kathy, the new ICANN Bylaws seem to prevent ICANN from getting involved in content. ICANN Bylaws ?1.1 clearly states: ?(c) ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.? Sadly, there is pesky section 1.1(a), which reads, in part: ?The issues, policies, procedures, and principles addressed in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2 with respect to gTLD registrars and registries shall be deemed to be within ICANN's Mission.? With respect to registrars (annex G1) and registries (annex G2) the following is expressly within the scope of ICANN: ?reservation of registered names in a TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration)?. Further, with regard to registrars (annex G1) and registries (annex G2) the following is to be held within ICANN?s scope: ?resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names)? Ms. Bridy writes extensively about the implications of Spec 11, public interest commitments, and the 2013 RAA. Well worth reading. Further, and simply put, some aspects of content related to intellectual property are within the express scope of ICANN?s mission statement, via Annex G1 and G2 ported to ICANN?s mission statement through the ?1.1 (a) exception to the prohibition of ICANN becoming involved in content through the ?1.1(c) prohibition. We don?t really know exactly what all of this means. Intellectual property interests will argue that the provision in ?1.1 (c) exempting that mentioned in ?1.1 (a) (Annex G1 and Annex G2) from the prohibition in ?1.1(c) against ICANN regulating content means ICANN can and perhaps should be or demand others to be the global intellectual property police. Others, like myself and most of us, will argue that the exception is a narrow one allowing ICANN to include these issues in an almost abstract and certainly distant way in contracts made with registrars and registers. I think our argument is stronger but we won?t really know with any certainty what this means until disputes in this area result in a complaint to and a decision by an Independent Review Panel (or several of them). I think there is less of a question that the new ICANN Bylaws do allow ICANN to become involved in creating or mandating rules for systems created down market to resolve disputes relating to registration of domain names due to alleged intellectual property violations. Per Annex G-1 and G-2 the inclusion of intellectual property in both annexes clearly creates a presumption that intellectual property disputes, which invariably involve use of the domain names, are included in ICANN?s mission as ?resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names? are within ICANN?s mission per Annex G-1 and G-2 ported into ICANN?s mission statement in Bylaws ?1.1. So, for example, I do believe it is within ICANN?s mission to be able to create requirements for proper due process safeguards to be built into these down market private agreements, such as the Donuts ? MPAA agreement, should it so desire. We can yell about ICANN getting involved in content but the reality is that the new Bylaws do not sadly construct a wall prohibiting ICANN involvement in all types of content disputes nor, fortunately, does it prevent us from demanding ICANN institute certain safeguards for registrants when their interests are threatened by, for example, private agreements made possible by the DNS architecture created by ICANN. For now, I?m hopeful that registrars will respond positively to charges that these agreements are a direct challenge to an ecosystem that they have done very well by. Continued subversion of the good faith adherence to ICANN developed policies, as both floors and ceilings, is in their long term interest. Articles like this by NCSG member EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/mpaa-may-donuts-they-shouldnt-be-copyright-police ) may be helpful in causing them to recognize that. If not, though, it?s important to realize that there is not a complete prohibition through the Bylaws for getting ICANN involved in all content related issues. Indeed, if we can?t stop this abuse of good faith ICANN involvement by certain registrars, involving ICANN may be our last and best chance to prevent registrants from being abused by agreements made by the industry cartel known as the Domain Name Association. Ed ---------------------------------------- From: "Kathy Kleiman" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:38 AM To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? Maybe. Don't we have a bylaw that says ICANN is to stay out of the content space? We have never wanted ICANN to become the regulator of speech and content, and with the transition, I thought that we affirmed that. So we may be in a Catch-22: we don't want private agreements to bypass speech/expression protections, and this type of regulation does not belong within ICANN. If that is the case, now what do we do? Best, Kathy On 2/27/2017 8:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ed, I was basically suggesting to bring it to ICANN space. we are in violent agreement. Best, Rafik 2017-02-28 10:41 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can we follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them to get involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? So more multi-stakeholder private agreements outside of ICANN, meaning all we do here is compromise to set industry floors which are then used to build maximalist protection policies threatening free speech with no guarantee of due process or appropriate privacy protection through private agreements with some sort of multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the real action is going to be the downmarket private agreements who in their right mind will volunteer to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct threat to the ICANN model with the logical end result being progressives calling for government intervention to prevent industry cartels from setting market conditions that threaten every value the NCSG was created to protect. Need I suggest that the day we have to call on the governments of the world to protect our free speech rights online is the day there no longer is such a thing. Of course when what NCSG member Rebecca McKinnon so brilliantly called Facebookistan, when applied to governance of social media by terms of service boilerplate agreements, is extended in a modified fashion to the entire dns there may be no other option. The process stinks, the policy stinks and this group needs to stand up for true multi-stakeholder principles and demand industry standards, floors and ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside of it. Otherwise the Donuts - MPAA agreement is the beginning of the end of this model of internet governance. No compromise, no surrender. Ed _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info Tue Feb 28 08:45:07 2017 From: ncsg at tapani.tarvainen.info (Tapani Tarvainen) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 08:45:07 +0200 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> Message-ID: <20170228064507.d5tonslovssqpiy6@tarvainen.info> Sounds good to me. Tapani On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 03:09:06PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: > Hi, > > we can suggest nomination period between Wednesday 1st March and Friday > 10th March, assuming that all candidates will be in Copenhagen. > > Best, > > Rafik > > 2017-02-27 23:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : > > > In terms of timeline, I'd suggest we try to get nominations in before > > Copenhagen and perhaps use ICANN 58 as a time to get to know the candidates > > better, perhaps invite them to our PC or regular SG meeting etc. Let's use > > the less than perfect timing to our advantage! > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From*: "Rafik Dammak" > > *Sent*: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM > > *To*: "avri at acm.org" > > *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" > > *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > > Selection Process > > > > Hi Avri, > > > > thanks for the suggestion, > > > > so we have now: > > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > > - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel > > starting (Wednesday?) > > > > Our counter-proposal is: > > > > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > > * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two > > * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole > > house. > > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > > against NOTA > > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get > > our act together. > > * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > > get our act together. > > > > we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. > > can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? > > > > Best, > > > > Rafik > > 2017-02-24 > > 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria : > >> > >> > >> > >> some minor typo corrections > >> > >> Our counter-proposal is: > >> > >> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > >> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > >> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > >> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top > >> two > > > > * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader > >> against NOTA > >> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get > >> our act together. > >> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > >> get our act together. > >> > >> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions > >> > > >> > I guess we say: > >> > - we cannot accept CSG proposal. > >> > - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in > >> > parallel starting next week Monday > >> > - Our counter-proposal is: > >> > > >> > * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > >> > * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. > >> > * as many nominees as come forward in a week. > >> > * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > >> > * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against > >> > NOTA > >> > * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we > >> > get our act together. > >> > * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we > >> > get our act together. > >> > > >> > if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. > >> > > >> > Best, > >> > > >> > Rafik > >> > > >> > 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: > >> > >> > > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal > >> > > >> > - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process > >> > > >> > - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to > >> > succeed. > >> > > >> > - as many nominees as come forward in a week. > >> > > >> > - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two > >> > > >> > - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader > >> > against NOTA > >> > > >> > - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get > >> our > >> > act together. > >> > > >> > - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until > >> > we get > >> > our act together. > >> > > >> > avri > >> > > >> > On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are > >> considering/or > >> > > not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative > >> > > version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next > >> > week? > >> > > > >> > > And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next > >> > week? or > >> > > two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the > >> > CSG and > >> > > NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether > >> > > should be nomination and/or self nomination. > >> > > > >> > > In the interim start work on the process? > >> > > > >> > > Matthew > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > >> Hi all, > >> > >> > >> > >> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG > >> > quickly. at > >> > >> least covering the topic of nomination. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> > >> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >> > > >> > >> >> >>>: > >> > >> > >> > >> Hi Matt, > >> > >> > >> > >> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this > >> > topic. > >> > >> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the > >> > process > >> > >> and adjust the whole timeline. > >> > >> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates > >> for > >> > >> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we > >> > >> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. > >> > >> > >> > >> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to > >> press > >> > >> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which > >> are > >> > >> non-negotiable with regard to the process. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> > >> > >> Rafik > >> > >> > >> > >> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears >> > > >> > >> >>: > >> > >> > >> > >> Thanks Rafik > >> > >> > >> > >> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal > >> > with it > >> > >> and we are running out of time. > >> > >> > >> > >> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, > >> > which > >> > >> was not really discussed further. Then we had some > >> general > >> > >> discussion about the need to do something on the Board > >> > >> selection process. People voiced their views on > >> different > >> > >> aspects of the process and there was concern over the > >> > >> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others > >> > >> please jump in as I may have missed some important > >> > >> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the > >> > >> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG > >> > proposal > >> > >> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed > >> > to be > >> > >> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. > >> > >> > >> > >> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a > >> > process and > >> > >> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so > >> at > >> > >> least the initial stages of the process are underway. > >> > >> > >> > >> Matthew > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: > >> > >>> Hi everyone, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on > >> > board > >> > >>> seat election. > >> > >>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what > >> > or not > >> > >>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended > >> > >>> intersessional? > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable > >> points > >> > >>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far > >> > from our > >> > >>> expectations. > >> > >>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it > >> > by end > >> > >>> of this week but we do need to be ready. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Best, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Rafik > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > >>> From: "Greg Shatan" >> > > >> > >>> >> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> > >> > >>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM > >> > >>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat > >> > Selection Process > >> > >>> To: >> > > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >>> Cc: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> All, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish > >> > >>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a > >> > small > >> > >>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think > >> > this > >> > >>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of > >> the > >> > >>> NCPH on it. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We basically have no time to work this out, and > >> we've > >> > >>> already started the process without knowing what it > >> is > >> > >>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures > >> > >>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the > >> > following > >> > >>> for consideration: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between > >> > CSG and > >> > >>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft > >> > process. > >> > >>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with > >> a > >> > >>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts > >> from > >> > >>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. > >> > >>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section > >> > >>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for > >> Seats > >> > >>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the > >> > Bylaws), and > >> > >>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section > >> > 11.3(f). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A few thoughts and comments: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go > >> > >>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 > >> > weeks > >> > >>> (just to go through). Talk about building the > >> > airplane > >> > >>> in the air. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible > >> > >>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any > >> > >>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is > >> > >>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, > >> we > >> > >>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP > >> > >>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the > >> > >>> nomination period). > >> > >>> > >> > >>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process > >> and > >> > >>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different > >> > when > >> > >>> it comes to voting. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> E. We should figure out how to get this process > >> > agreed > >> > >>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual > >> > >>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as > >> > >>> precedent for any future process. We just need to > >> get > >> > >>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to > >> > >>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the > >> > >>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between > >> > that and > >> > >>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to > >> > arrange a > >> > >>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball > >> > forward. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks for reading, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Greg > >> > >>> > >> > >>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, > >> but > >> > >>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO > >> > Procedures > >> > >>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws > >> deadline > >> > >>> for naming the Director was changed from one month > >> to > >> > >>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to > >> > being > >> > >>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be > >> > updated in > >> > >>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now > >> > >>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this > >> > error. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >> > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >> > >>> S: gsshatan > >> > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >> > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > >> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> > >>> From: *Greg Shatan* >> > > >> > >>> >> > >> > >> > >>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM > >> > >>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board > >> > Selection Process > >> > >>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > >> > > >> > >>> >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, > >> > >>> > >> > >>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed > >> > >>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the > >> > >>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties > >> House. > >> > >>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing > >> changes > >> > >>> from the CPH document. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any > >> > >>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode > >> (but > >> > >>> everyone has "edit" > >> > >>> rights): > >> > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu > >> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing> > >> > >>> > >> > >> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing > >> > >> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board > >> > >>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before > >> > making it > >> > >>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of > >> > the IPC, > >> > >>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion > >> on > >> > >>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have > >> for > >> > >>> this year. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> We look forward to your thoughts. > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Thanks! > >> > >>> > >> > >>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional > >> Teams) > >> > >>> > >> > >>> *Greg Shatan > >> > >>> *C: 917-816-6428 > >> > >>> S: gsshatan > >> > >>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 > >> > > >> > >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com > >> > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list > >> > >>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org > >> > > >> > >>> >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > >> > > >> > >>> >> mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 > >> > > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >> > >>> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> > >>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> > > > >> > >>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > > >> > >>> >> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> > >> ------------ > >> > >> Matthew Shears > >> > >> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >> > >> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > >> > >> + 44 771 2472987 > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> > >> NCSG-PC mailing list > >> > >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> > >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > > >> > > -- > >> > > ------------ > >> > > Matthew Shears > >> > > Global Internet Policy and Human Rights > >> > > Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) > >> > > + 44 771 2472987 > >> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > >> > > NCSG-PC mailing list > >> > > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> > > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > --- > >> > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >> > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > NCSG-PC mailing list > >> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > >> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> --- > >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus > >> > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc -- Tapani Tarvainen From egmorris1 at toast.net Tue Feb 28 08:48:38 2017 From: egmorris1 at toast.net (Edward Morris) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 06:48:38 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat Selection Process In-Reply-To: <20170228064507.d5tonslovssqpiy6@tarvainen.info> References: <30cce838-8dbb-28a0-7f77-55bc42044349@cdt.org> <87456559-c748-89d5-66e5-3cea30b3a0a5@apc.org> <32395210102846a59493e1f208f658e3@toast.net> <20170228064507.d5tonslovssqpiy6@tarvainen.info> Message-ID: <8AD65F34-0222-4870-BCB7-A0E60EB64750@toast.net> Me too. Sent from my iPhone > On 28 Feb 2017, at 06:45, Tapani Tarvainen wrote: > > Sounds good to me. > > Tapani > >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 03:09:06PM +0900, Rafik Dammak (rafik.dammak at gmail.com) wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> we can suggest nomination period between Wednesday 1st March and Friday >> 10th March, assuming that all candidates will be in Copenhagen. >> >> Best, >> >> Rafik >> >> 2017-02-27 23:27 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : >> >>> In terms of timeline, I'd suggest we try to get nominations in before >>> Copenhagen and perhaps use ICANN 58 as a time to get to know the candidates >>> better, perhaps invite them to our PC or regular SG meeting etc. Let's use >>> the less than perfect timing to our advantage! >>> >>> Ed >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From*: "Rafik Dammak" >>> *Sent*: Monday, February 27, 2017 2:06 PM >>> *To*: "avri at acm.org" >>> *Cc*: "ncsg-pc" >>> *Subject*: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat >>> Selection Process >>> >>> Hi Avri, >>> >>> thanks for the suggestion, >>> >>> so we have now: >>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal. >>> - we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in parallel >>> starting (Wednesday?) >>> >>> Our counter-proposal is: >>> >>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top two >>> * a joint interview of the top 2 before second round with the whole >>> house. >>> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader >>> against NOTA >>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get >>> our act together. >>> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >>> get our act together. >>> >>> we need to agree quickly on procedure for NCSG and document that. >>> can we get consensus this by Tuesday 12:00pm UTC and respond ot CSG? >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Rafik >>> 2017-02-24 >>> 21:42 GMT+09:00 avri doria : >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> some minor typo corrections >>>> >>>> Our counter-proposal is: >>>> >>>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >>>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>>> * 1st round if one gets 8 then done, if not second round between top >>>> two >>> >>> * 2nd round if one get 8 then done, if not do 3rd round of leader >>>> against NOTA >>>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we get >>>> our act together. >>>> * then CSG PCs, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >>>> get our act together. >>>> >>>>> On 24-Feb-17 00:31, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Avri, Matt, Ed for comments and suggestions >>>>> >>>>> I guess we say: >>>>> - we cannot accept CSG proposal. >>>>> - However, we can start the nomination process, for NCSG and CSG in >>>>> parallel starting next week Monday >>>>> - Our counter-proposal is: >>>>> >>>>> * NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>>>> * there must be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to succeed. >>>>> * as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>>>> * 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >>>>> * 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader against >>>>> NOTA >>>>> * 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave the seat open until we >>>>> get our act together. >>>>> * then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until we >>>>> get our act together. >>>>> >>>>> if we have a consensus by Sunday, we should share our response with CSG. >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> >>>>> Rafik >>>>> >>>>> 2017-02-24 9:29 GMT+09:00 avri doria >: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I think we could respond that we do not accept their proposal >>>>> >>>>> - NCA is not to removed from any part of the process >>>>> >>>>> - we insist that there be a vote along the previous lines - 8 to >>>>> succeed. >>>>> >>>>> - as many nominees as come forward in a week. >>>>> >>>>> - 1st round if one get 8 done, if not second round between top two >>>>> >>>>> - 2nd round if one get 8 done, if not do 3rd round of leader >>>>> against NOTA >>>>> >>>>> - 3rd round if person does not get 8, leave seat open until we get >>>> our >>>>> act together. >>>>> >>>>> - then CSG PC, NCSG PC, NCPH council members and NCA talk until >>>>> we get >>>>> our act together. >>>>> >>>>> avri >>>>> >>>>>> On 23-Feb-17 05:49, matthew shears wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Perhaps as a first step go back to CSG and say we are >>>> considering/or >>>>>> not their doc and will be proposing something or an alternative >>>>>> version - and put some deadline on it for us - maybe end of next >>>>> week? >>>>>> >>>>>> And, try to get agreement on a nomination period - say next >>>>> week? or >>>>>> two weeks from Monday? Probably would be useful to have the >>>>> CSG and >>>>>> NCSG nomination periods run in parallel. Agree with CSG whether >>>>>> should be nomination and/or self nomination. >>>>>> >>>>>> In the interim start work on the process? >>>>>> >>>>>> Matthew >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 23/02/2017 08:07, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> we really need to develop our response or proposal to CSG >>>>> quickly. at >>>>>>> least covering the topic of nomination. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-02-22 11:27 GMT+09:00 Rafik Dammak >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> : >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Matt, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> thanks for the response, looking for other comments on this >>>>> topic. >>>>>>> I think we can start with nomination whole we work on the >>>>> process >>>>>>> and adjust the whole timeline. >>>>>>> how we shall proceed for nominations, we have 2 candidates >>>> for >>>>>>> now. shall we initiate a process to find other candidates? we >>>>>>> don't have so much time for a long nomination period. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I understand that we are having the deadline as a mean to >>>> press >>>>>>> us but we should stand and be clear about the aspects which >>>> are >>>>>>> non-negotiable with regard to the process. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 2017-02-21 19:13 GMT+09:00 matthew shears >>>> >>>>>>> >>: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks Rafik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not sure much was agreed except that we need to deal >>>>> with it >>>>>>> and we are running out of time. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First we had the timeline from Greg before the meeting, >>>>> which >>>>>>> was not really discussed further. Then we had some >>>> general >>>>>>> discussion about the need to do something on the Board >>>>>>> selection process. People voiced their views on >>>> different >>>>>>> aspects of the process and there was concern over the >>>>>>> timeline, but we did not really decide anything (others >>>>>>> please jump in as I may have missed some important >>>>>>> aspects). Markus announced he wanted to continue in the >>>>>>> role; I announced I was going to run. Then the CSG >>>>> proposal >>>>>>> for a process was circulated on Thurs AM. There seemed >>>>> to be >>>>>>> general agreement that the CSG proposal was not ideal. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think the key immediate thing is us agreeing a >>>>> process and >>>>>>> timeline for nominations and getting that announced, so >>>> at >>>>>>> least the initial stages of the process are underway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Matthew >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 20/02/2017 10:56, Rafik Dammak wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We got this note from Greg to resume the discussion on >>>>> board >>>>>>>> seat election. >>>>>>>> First thing, is it possible to get a summary of what >>>>> or not >>>>>>>> agreed on iceland on that regard from those who attended >>>>>>>> intersessional? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We also need to outline what are our non-negotiable >>>> points >>>>>>>> such as having vote, NCA participation and so on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think tgat the CSG proposal from last week is far >>>>> from our >>>>>>>> expectations. >>>>>>>> There is also proposal to have a call. We can have it >>>>> by end >>>>>>>> of this week but we do need to be ready. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Rafik >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: "Greg Shatan" >>>> >>>>>>>> >>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com>>> >>>>>>>> Date: Feb 20, 2017 2:13 PM >>>>>>>> Subject: [Ncph-intersessional2017] Board Seat >>>>> Selection Process >>>>>>>> To: >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Cc: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We probably need a different mailing list to finish >>>>>>>> working on the Board Seat selection process, and a >>>>> small >>>>>>>> group to do it, but I'll start here, since I think >>>>> this >>>>>>>> is the only active mailing list with both sides of >>>> the >>>>>>>> NCPH on it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We basically have no time to work this out, and >>>> we've >>>>>>>> already started the process without knowing what it >>>> is >>>>>>>> exactly, since we have now received nominations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In addition to the adaptation of the CPH procedures >>>>>>>> previously circulated, I'm also attaching the >>>>> following >>>>>>>> for consideration: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 1. Some bullet-points from an exchange between >>>>> CSG and >>>>>>>> NCSG representatives outlining a potential draft >>>>> process. >>>>>>>> 2. The latest version of the ICANN Staff Memo with >>>> a >>>>>>>> revised draft timeline and some relevant excerpts >>>> from >>>>>>>> Bylaws and GNSO Procedures. >>>>>>>> 3. A further excerpt from the Bylaws, with Section >>>>>>>> 11.3(f), which covers the selection process for >>>> Seats >>>>>>>> 13-14 (to the extent that is covered in the >>>>> Bylaws), and >>>>>>>> Section 11.3(h), which is referred to in Section >>>>> 11.3(f). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A few thoughts and comments: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A. We only have 10 1/2 weeks to both develop and go >>>>>>>> through a process that is contemplated to take 21 >>>>> weeks >>>>>>>> (just to go through). Talk about building the >>>>> airplane >>>>>>>> in the air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> B. At the Intersessional, we discussed possible >>>>>>>> adjustments to the timeline, but did not come to any >>>>>>>> decisions. It's not clear to me whether Staff is >>>>>>>> preparing a further revised draft. I'll ask. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C. If any of our groups have not already done so, >>>> we >>>>>>>> should put out a call for any other nominations ASAP >>>>>>>> (though it would be nice to know the end of the >>>>>>>> nomination period). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> D. Without making any judgments, the CPH process >>>> and >>>>>>>> the NCPH bullet-points are significantly different >>>>> when >>>>>>>> it comes to voting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E. We should figure out how to get this process >>>>> agreed >>>>>>>> as quickly as possible. Given the unusual >>>>>>>> circumstances, we don't need to use this process as >>>>>>>> precedent for any future process. We just need to >>>> get >>>>>>>> through this selection. One approach is for NCSG to >>>>>>>> respond to the draft sent at the end of the >>>>>>>> Intersessional. However, given the gap between >>>>> that and >>>>>>>> the bullet-points, it might just be better to >>>>> arrange a >>>>>>>> call/Adobe Connect session ASAP to move the ball >>>>> forward. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for reading, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.S. It's not all that important how we got here, >>>> but >>>>>>>> nonetheless, it should be noted that the GNSO >>>>> Procedures >>>>>>>> were never updated from 2012, when the Bylaws >>>> deadline >>>>>>>> for naming the Director was changed from one month >>>> to >>>>>>>> two months (briefly) and then six months prior to >>>>> being >>>>>>>> seated. (The GNSO Procedures will need to be >>>>> updated in >>>>>>>> any event, since the Bylaws references are now >>>>>>>> obsolete.)) The draft bullet-points repeated this >>>>> error. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> B. Since we are doing this with very little time >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Greg Shatan >>>>>>>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>>>>>>> S: gsshatan >>>>>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>>>> From: *Greg Shatan* >>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >> >>>>>>>> Date: Thu, Feb 16, 2017 at 5:28 AM >>>>>>>> Subject: Discussion Draft of Interim Board >>>>> Selection Process >>>>>>>> To: ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> NCSG/NCUC/NPOC Intersessional Participants, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The CSG prepared a "discussion draft" of a proposed >>>>>>>> interim Board Selection Process based closely on the >>>>>>>> Final Process adopted by the Contracted Parties >>>> House. >>>>>>>> Clean and marked drafts are attached, showing >>>> changes >>>>>>>> from the CPH document. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A Google Docs version can be found here, where any >>>>>>>> suggested changes can be added in "suggest" mode >>>> (but >>>>>>>> everyone has "edit" >>>>>>>> rights): >>>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lx8jCTEWGAuPyPpnL_RaHGu >>>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>> m4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing >>>>> >>> um4dQXf2a1MTyYXx8O9dc/edit?usp=sharing>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We would hope to use this for the current 2017 Board >>>>>>>> Seat process and then revisit afterward before >>>>> making it >>>>>>>> a permanent rather than "interim" process. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This has not been reviewed by the membership of >>>>> the IPC, >>>>>>>> BC and ISPCP, but we wanted to start the discussion >>>> on >>>>>>>> this basis, given the short amount of time we have >>>> for >>>>>>>> this year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We look forward to your thoughts. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Greg (on behalf of BC/IPC/ISPCP Intersessional >>>> Teams) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Greg Shatan >>>>>>>> *C: 917-816-6428 >>>>>>>> S: gsshatan >>>>>>>> Phone-to-Skype: 646-845-9428 >>>>> >>>>>>>> gregshatanipc at gmail.com >>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 mailing list >>>>>>>> Ncph-intersessional2017 at icann.org >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>> mailman/listinfo/ncph-intersessional2017 >>>>> > >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> > >>>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ------------ >>>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >>>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >>>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> ------------ >>>>>> Matthew Shears >>>>>> Global Internet Policy and Human Rights >>>>>> Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) >>>>>> + 44 771 2472987 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> NCSG-PC mailing list >>>>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> --- >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >>>> >>>> >>> > >> _______________________________________________ >> NCSG-PC mailing list >> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is >> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc > > > -- > Tapani Tarvainen > _______________________________________________ > NCSG-PC mailing list > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc From mshears at cdt.org Tue Feb 28 12:55:47 2017 From: mshears at cdt.org (mshears at cdt.org) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 10:55:47 +0000 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? In-Reply-To: <12057e4944dd4e32b8726234b938ca4d@toast.net> References: <20170227145459.mdxcbvjnyyp6a26m@tarvainen.info> <5_aQ2wNDAt6l7kEPhMCsSCclmiJDfCfyFpoyhKeti7fmN1jA_rHcH_gHoBtcp_wWK14AAnjBAdGvOUCqIYg4iHfRgV3wqFSGsK1tb6VcDAU=@ferdeline.com> <5acbf303-9a32-a2b6-27a8-19097b2d0bcd@kathykleiman.com> <12057e4944dd4e32b8726234b938ca4d@toast.net> Message-ID: <58b5573d.8e121c0a.d5650.a6a1@mx.google.com> Ed just wanted to say thanks for the pointer to the doc and for your thoughts. Very helpful. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Edward Morris Sent: 28 February 2017 06:32 To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is; Kathy Kleiman Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? It truly is a tricky situation, Kathy. It will be interesting to see how the registrars respond to our queries in this area. The more sophisticated registrars, and those who are paid to represent them, will make exactly the argument you are making. A step back from that, and more convincing from my point of view, will be the argument that freedom of contract should allow parties to make such deals outside the ICANN framework.?Of course, we also have the new ICANN Bylaws to contend with. ? Milton referred us earlier in the week to an excellent paper in progress by Anmarie Bridy entitled ?Notice and Takedown in the Domain Name System: ICANN?s Ambivalent Drift Into Online Content Regulation (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2920805 ). I quote from that paper: ? ?No matter how vehemently ICANN officials insist that they are minding the limits of their mission, the truth of the matter is that ICANN knowingly created a contractual architecture for the new gTLDs that supports an unprecedented program of private, DNS-based content regulation on behalf of copyright holders and, potentially, other ?trusted? parties. Moreover, in creating that architecture, ICANN did nothing to secure any procedural protections or uniform substantive standards for domain name registrants who find themselves subject to this new form of DNS regulation. That omission should be a red flag for those who worry that ICANN?s newly minted independence from the U.S. government will make its internal governance more susceptible to capture by powerful commercial and governmental interests.? ? Yes, Kathy, the new ICANN Bylaws seem to prevent ICANN from getting involved in content. ICANN Bylaws ?1.1 clearly states: ? ?(c) ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.? ? Sadly, there is pesky section 1.1(a), which reads, in part: ? ?The issues, policies, procedures, and principles addressed in Annex G-1 and Annex G-2 with respect to gTLD registrars and registries shall be deemed to be within ICANN's Mission.? ? With respect to registrars (annex G1) and registries (annex G2) the following is expressly within the scope of ICANN: ? ?reservation of registered names in a TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (i) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (ii) intellectual property, or (iii) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration)?. ? Further, with regard to registrars (annex G1) and registries (annex G2) the following is to be held within ICANN?s scope: ? ?resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names (as opposed to the use of such domain names, but including where such policies take into account use of the domain names)? ? Ms. Bridy writes extensively about the implications of Spec 11, public interest commitments, and the 2013 RAA. Well worth reading. ? Further, and simply put, some aspects of content related to intellectual property are within the express scope of ICANN?s mission statement, via Annex G1 and G2 ported to ICANN?s mission statement through the ?1.1 (a) exception to the prohibition of ICANN becoming involved in content through the ?1.1(c) prohibition. ? We don?t really know exactly what all of this means. Intellectual property interests will argue that the provision in ?1.1 (c) exempting that mentioned in ?1.1 (a) (Annex G1 and Annex G2) from the prohibition in ?1.1(c) against ICANN regulating content means ICANN can and perhaps should be or demand others to be the global intellectual property police. Others, like myself and most of us, will argue that the exception is a narrow one allowing ICANN to include these issues in an almost abstract and certainly distant way in contracts made with registrars and registers. I think our argument is stronger but we won?t really know with any certainty what this means until disputes in this area result in a complaint to and a decision by an Independent Review Panel (or several of them). ? I think there is less of a question that the new ICANN Bylaws do allow ICANN to become involved in creating or mandating rules for systems created down market to resolve disputes relating to registration of domain names due to alleged intellectual property violations. Per Annex G-1 and G-2 the inclusion of intellectual property in both annexes clearly creates a presumption that intellectual property disputes, which invariably involve use of the domain names, are included in ICANN?s mission as ?resolution of disputes regarding the registration of domain names? are within ICANN?s mission per Annex G-1 and G-2 ported into ICANN?s mission statement in Bylaws ?1.1. ? So, for example, I do believe it is within ICANN?s mission to be able to create requirements for proper due process safeguards to be built into these down market private agreements, such as the Donuts ? MPAA agreement, should it so desire. We can yell about ICANN getting involved in content but the reality is that the new Bylaws do not sadly construct a wall prohibiting ICANN involvement in all types of content disputes nor, fortunately, does it prevent us from demanding ICANN institute certain safeguards for registrants when their interests are threatened by, for example, private agreements made possible by the DNS architecture created by ICANN. ? ? For now, I?m hopeful that registrars will respond positively to charges that these agreements are a direct challenge to an ecosystem that they have done very well by. Continued subversion of the good faith adherence to ICANN developed policies, as both floors and ceilings, is in their long term interest. Articles like this by NCSG member EFF (https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/mpaa-may-donuts-they-shouldnt-be-copyright-police ) may be helpful in causing them to recognize that. ? If not, though, it?s important to realize that there is not a complete prohibition through the Bylaws for getting ICANN involved in all content related issues. Indeed, if we can?t stop this abuse of good faith ICANN involvement ?by certain registrars, involving ICANN may be our last and best chance to prevent registrants from being abused by agreements made by the industry cartel known as the Domain Name Association.????? ? Ed ? ? ? From: "Kathy Kleiman" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 2:38 AM To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Topics for meetings with RySG & RrSG? ? Maybe. Don't we have a bylaw that says ICANN is to stay out of the content space?? We have never wanted ICANN to become the regulator of speech and content, and with the transition, I thought that we affirmed that. So we may be in a Catch-22: we don't want private agreements to bypass speech/expression protections, and this type of regulation does not belong within ICANN.? If that is the case, now what do we do? Best, Kathy On 2/27/2017 8:44 PM, Rafik Dammak wrote: Hi Ed, ? I was basically suggesting to bring it to ICANN space. we are in violent agreement. ? Best, ? Rafik ? 2017-02-28 10:41 GMT+09:00 Edward Morris : ? ? with the regard to Healthy Domain Initiative and PIR's SCDRP, can we follow a more positive and proactive approach and asking them to get involved in more Multistakeholder fashion? So more multi-stakeholder private agreements outside of ICANN, meaning all we do here is compromise to set industry floors which are then used to build maximalist protection policies threatening free speech with no guarantee of due process or appropriate privacy protection through private agreements with some sort of multi-stakeholder veneer? No thanks. If the real action is going to be the downmarket private agreements who in their right mind will volunteer to do work in ICANN? This process is a direct threat to the ICANN model with the logical end result being progressives calling for government intervention to prevent industry cartels from setting market conditions that threaten every value the NCSG was created to protect. Need I suggest that the day we have to call on the governments of the world to protect our free speech rights online is the day there no longer is such a thing. Of course when what NCSG member Rebecca McKinnon so brilliantly called Facebookistan, when applied to governance of social media by terms of service boilerplate agreements, ?is extended in a modified fashion to the entire dns there may be no other option. The process stinks, the policy stinks and this group needs to stand up for true multi-stakeholder principles and demand industry standards, floors and ceilings, be set inside ICANN, not outside of it. Otherwise the Donuts - MPAA agreement is the beginning of the end of this model of internet governance.? No compromise, no surrender. Ed ? ? ? _______________________________________________ NCSG-PC mailing list NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: FC0483649BBD47E2B081F7DAB232EAA9.png Type: image/png Size: 155 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 28 20:20:22 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:20:22 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] GNSO Policy Briefings published In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5020f465-fb59-1ad7-a908-bd16f231f1ab@mail.utoronto.ca> These are worthwhile Stephanie Perrin -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] GNSO Policy Briefings published Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:14:14 +0000 From: Marika Konings To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear All, To assist you and your respective communities in the preparation for ICANN58, the GNSO Team has just published the GNSO Policy Briefings which can be found here: https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/policy-briefing-icann58-27feb17-en.pdf. Please distribute these to your respective communities and/or anyone else that may be interested. Best regards, Marika */Marika Konings/* /Vice President, Policy Development Support ? GNSO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) / /Email: marika.konings at icann.org / // /Follow the GNSO via Twitter @ICANN_GNSO/ /Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages . / -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council From stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca Tue Feb 28 20:25:03 2017 From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca (Stephanie Perrin) Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 13:25:03 -0500 Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [council] FOR INFORMATION & DISTRIBUTION: Public comment period extended for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP Initial Report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [council] FOR INFORMATION & DISTRIBUTION: Public comment period extended for the IGO-INGO Curative Rights PDP Initial Report Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2017 14:41:30 +0000 From: Mary Wong To: council at gnso.icann.org Dear Councilors, Please note that the public comment period for the Initial Report of the IGO-INGO Access to Curative Rights PDP Working Group has been extended, on request, to *30 March 2017* (see below for further information). We hope this will allow your respective communities sufficient time to consider submitting comments to the report. For your information, a 30-minute slot has been allocated for the Working Group co-chairs ? as has been done for the other ongoing PDP Working Groups ? to discuss progress with the Council and GNSO community as part of the GNSO Working Sessions on Sunday 12 March. To maximize the discussion time, you may wish to consider sending in any questions you or your communities may have for each PDP Working Group ahead of time ? staff will be pleased to collate and circulate the questions on your behalf. Thanks and cheers Mary *From: * on behalf of Mary Wong *Date: *Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 09:34 *To: *"gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org" *Subject: *[Gnso-igo-ingo-crp] Comment period extended for the Initial Report Dear all, In view of community requests received for an extension of the public comment period for our Initial Report, the Working Group co-chairs have agreed to an extension of 2 weeks following the close of the upcoming ICANN58 Public Meeting. The comment period will now close on *30 March 2017*: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-2017-01-20-en[icann.org] . We do not anticipate this extension affecting the current plan to discuss our preliminary recommendations, and feedback received so far, with the community at ICANN58. There have been several comments received to date, as some members will have noted: https://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-igo-ingo-crp-access-initial-20jan17/[forum.icann.org] . Staff will of course continue to encourage interested community groups and members to submit their comments as soon as they can. Thanks and cheers Mary -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gnso-igo-ingo-crp mailing list Gnso-igo-ingo-crp at icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-igo-ingo-crp -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ council mailing list council at gnso.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council