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

[Rafik Dammak]

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 <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
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170215/239748b6/attachment.htm>