[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Wed Feb 22 21:30:34 EET 2017
at this point I don't really know Kathy, I think I need an update from
Peter. Not sure what he is working on at the moment....
But I will share my schedule once I get it all filled in, that could be
useful to those who want to follow privacy issues. Busy busy schedule
for Copenhagen...
cheers STephanie
On 2017-02-22 13:55, Kathy Kleiman wrote:
>
> Stephanie, what are the slots on Monday (and perhaps Tuesday) that we
> should be attending to cheer loudly for the Data Protection
> Commissioners, you and Peter Kimpian of the Council of Europe? Can't
> wait to be at these events!
>
> Best and tx, Kathy
>
> On 2/22/2017 1:30 PM, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>
>> I was just contacted by the Data Protection Officer for Europol (who
>> happens to be an old colleague, I saw her in Brussels). She is
>> interested in attending the Copenhagen meeting, and I took the
>> liberty of inviting her to come and speak to us....she gave me the
>> manual for the data protection officers in Europol, and it would be
>> great to hear what law enforcement is /supposed/ to be doing to
>> protect data.....
>>
>> I dont think I have quite talked her into coming yet but there is
>> definitely interest...
>>
>> cheers Steph
>>
>>
>> On 2017-02-18 01:07, Stephanie Perrin wrote:
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20170222/a42208c8/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list