[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Sat Feb 18 08:07:04 EET 2017
unfortunately, commissioners are not going to stay till Wednesday, it is
all getting crammed into Monday. best we could do would be something
first thing Tuesday.....
I think Chuck has got some time in there somehow.....can remember when
but will find it and send to the list
SP
On 2017-02-17 19:26, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
> If I understand correctly, the Commissioners are visiting us on the
> Wednesday? In that case, for maximum attendance, it might be best if
> our session was from 1:45pm to 3:00pm. But I do not know what the rest
> of their day looks like. Thanks again for organising this.
>
> Ayden
>
>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 9:38 PM
>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 21:38
>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>> To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
>>
>>
>> you are right, it is on Saturday
>>
>>
>> On 2017-02-15 12:33, Ayden Férdeline wrote:
>>> Hi Stephanie,
>>>
>>> I don't see an RDS meeting scheduled for the Wednesday? Perhaps it
>>> is on the schedule under a different name, or perhaps I have just
>>> missed it? (Here is a link to the tentative schedule
>>> <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20170214/01a86592/attachment.pdf>.)
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ayden
>>>
>>>
>>>> -------- Original Message --------
>>>> Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session
>>>> Planning
>>>> Local Time: 15 February 2017 11:55 AM
>>>> UTC Time: 15 February 2017 11:55
>>>> From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
>>>> To: Rafik Dammak <rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>>> ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ok so Maryam got back to me. THey forgot it. (how Convenient).
>>>> So do we have a preferred timeslot? I will ask Peter....
>>>>
>>>> Steph
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?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 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>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170218/74c6706a/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list