[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 15 07:12:56 EET 2017
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
> <mailto: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
>> <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/20170215/d292c535/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list