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

Sat Feb 18 20:39:13 EET 2017

Thanks for this clarification, Stephanie, and for all your work organising this session. I just want to make sure I do not miss any of these sessions with the Commissioners. My understanding is on the Monday they will be at the following sessions:

- 15:15 - 16:45: Cross-Community Discussion with Data Protection Commissioners

- 17:00 - 18:30: GAC Meeting: Council of Europe Data Protection Commissioners

Are there any others? The RDS session that Chuck is chairing on Monday is from 15:15 - 16:30, so if that's the one he has invited them to speak at, I just want to flag this as there appears to be a conflict. Thanks!

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline
[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Local Time: 18 February 2017 6:07 AM
UTC Time: 18 February 2017 06:07
From: stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
To: Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com>
ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is

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>](mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com)
ncsg-pc [<ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>](mailto: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>:

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>](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 [<kathy at kathykleiman.com>](mailto:kathy at kathykleiman.com), donna.austin at neustar.biz [<donna.austin at neustar.biz>](mailto:donna.austin at neustar.biz), 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
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

_______________________________________________ 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/20170218/4b733015/attachment.htm>