[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Poncelet Ileleji
pileleji at ymca.gm
Wed Feb 22 22:03:06 EET 2017
I concur also
On 22 February 2017 at 21:01, avri doria <avri at apc.org> wrote:
> good idea.
>
> avri
>
>
> On 22-Feb-17 13:36, Milan, Stefania wrote:
> > Dear Steph this is absolutely great. what can we do to help convincing
> her to join?
> > And.. any chance you can.. share that manual? :-)
> > Best, Stefania
> >
> >
> >
> > ________________________________________
> > Da: NCSG-PC <ncsg-pc-bounces at lists.ncsg.is> per conto di Stephanie
> Perrin <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> > Inviato: mercoledì 22 febbraio 2017 19.30.28
> > A: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is
> > Oggetto: Re: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
> >
> > 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<mailto:stephanie.
> perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>
> > To: ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is<mailto: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<mailto: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<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:cwil
> son 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? --> 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.
> --> 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." --> 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. --> 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.
> >
> >
> > --> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution,
> forwarding, or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this
> information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is
> prohibited without the express permission of the sender. If you received
> this communication in error, please contact the sender and delete the
> material from any computer.
> > _______________________________________________
> > NCSG-PC mailing list
> > NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> > https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>
--
Poncelet O. Ileleji MBCS
Coordinator
The Gambia YMCAs Computer Training Centre & Digital Studio
MDI Road Kanifing South
P. O. Box 421 Banjul
The Gambia, West Africa
Tel: (220) 4370240
Fax:(220) 4390793
Cell:(220) 9912508
Skype: pons_utd
*www.ymca.gm <http://www.ymca.gm>http://jokkolabs.net/en/
<http://jokkolabs.net/en/>www.waigf.org
<http://www.waigf.org>www,insistglobal.com <http://www.itag.gm>www.npoc.org
<http://www.npoc.org>http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753
<http://www.wsa-mobile.org/node/753>*www.diplointernetgovernance.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170222/1f3fb0d4/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list