[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 15 11:41:28 EET 2017
We don't have a time slot yet, he is waiting for me to confirm that we
have the slot before he invites them all to the wednesday events. RDS
PDP already has a face to face meeting that day, David C would know what
time that is....CHuck merely asked if whoever was still around could
join that meeting. THere is a call for volunteers to dream up questions
for that PDP. I have already volunteered just in case this gets thrown
together hastily, but if anyone else wants to volunteer I will step aside.
SP
On 2017-02-15 00:28, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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
>> <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>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170215/94974821/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list