[NCSG-PC] Fwd: Re: ICANN58 Data Protection Session Planning
Stephanie Perrin
stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
Thu Feb 23 05:23:00 EET 2017
I have asked Peter for an update Rafik but nothing back so far, will
keep at it as he is the only one who can help with that.
Stephanie
On 2017-02-22 18:47, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the data protection session is scheduled for Monday
> https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nnl/cross-community-discussion-with-data-protection-commissioners
> the commissioners have other sessions, one with GAC
> (https://schedule.icann.org/event/9np1/gac-meeting-council-of-europe-data-protection-commissioners)
> and I think some private meetings not listed in the schedule.
> we had the suggestion to have meeting the commissioners in
> Tuesday during NCSG session for CD but I don't think we have any
> suggested time or heard from Peter about that. @Stephanie can you
> please confirm the availability with him?
> we will also have to adjust our NCSG session agenda, @Tapani do you
> have a draft agenda for it yet? the session is here
> https://schedule.icann.org/event/9nqC/gnso-non-commercial-stakeholder-group-ncsg-meeting
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-02-23 4:30 GMT+09:00 Stephanie Perrin
> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca
> <mailto:stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca>>:
>
> 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
>>>>>> <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: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 <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 <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 <mailto:NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is>
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
> <https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20170222/b4a52839/attachment.htm>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list