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

[farzaneh badii]

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> <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 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. 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/d57bdf2e/attachment.htm>