[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 15 06:23:05 EET 2017
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
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto:gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
> To: KIMPIAN Peter <Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
> <mailto:Peter.KIMPIAN at coe.int>
> CC: Victoria Sheckler <vsheckler at riaa.com>
> <mailto:vsheckler at riaa.com>, James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
> <mailto:jbladel at godaddy.com>, kathy at kathykleiman.com
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com> <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
> <mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com>, donna.austin at neustar.biz
> <mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz> <donna.austin at neustar.biz>
> <mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz>, heather.forrest at acu.edu.au
> <mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au> <heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>
> <mailto:heather.forrest at acu.edu.au>, Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>, KWASNY Sophie
> <Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int> <mailto:Sophie.KWASNY at coe.int>, Wilson,
> Christopher <cwilson at 21cf.com> <mailto:cwilson at 21cf.com>, Tony
> Holmes <tonyarholmes at btinternet.com>
> <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?àthis 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.àI 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."ànot 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.àI 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.
>
> àTherefore 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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170214/1e8c1280/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list