[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning

Wed Feb 15 06:09:51 EET 2017

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> <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> To: KIMPIAN Peter <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int> <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
> CC: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com> <vsheckler at riaa.com>, James M.
> Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> <jbladel at godaddy.com>, kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <kathy at kathykleiman.com> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>,
> donna.austin at neustar.biz <donna.austin at neustar.biz>
> <donna.austin at neustar.biz>, heather.forrest at acu.edu.au
> <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au> <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>, Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KWASNY Sophie <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>
> <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>, Wilson, Christopher <cwilson at 21cf.com>
> <cwilson at 21cf.com>, Tony Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> <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? à 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. à
>> 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." à 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. à 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.
>
> à 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. àPlease 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: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170214/57923f07/attachment.htm>