Agree with Carlos on this one. The elected must whenever possible reflect the views of their electors. This is how politics is corrupted, in the sense that representativeness is lost and confidence is broken.<div><br></div>
<div>Furthermore, 4 days to reply to this is a really long time...</div><div><br></div><div>BR</div><div>NG<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 12 October 2011 14:34, Carlos A. Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ca@cafonso.ca">ca@cafonso.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Spock-logical answer... :)<br>
<br>
Fascinating. Now we have a "law enforcement community". Now the<br>
repressing agents are put all in the same basket as an interest group! I<br>
thought civil society's focus in vying for rights was to debate and<br>
dialogue with law makers, not the guys who go kicking and arresting<br>
people under orders of those law makers, to put it bluntly. Soon we will<br>
have the flics-and-cops constituency, supported by NPOC?<br>
<br>
Your argument does not stick, simply, Debbie.<br>
<br>
--c.a.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
On 10/12/2011 10:21 AM, Debra Hughes wrote:<br>
> Thanks for your question, Robin. My vote reflects the considered<br>
> opinion of the NPOC community. During the discussion of the motion, Tim<br>
> Ruiz (the maker) explained the dissatisfaction by the law enforcement<br>
> community that important requests from their community were not included<br>
> among the possible policy revisions that would be considered in the<br>
> issues report. Since the purpose of this request is intended to "assist<br>
> law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based<br>
> criminal activity" it seemed only reasonable that the scope of the<br>
> Issues report would include possible policy additions and revisions that<br>
> are very important to the group for which the initiative is designed to<br>
> assist. It appears the interests of the registrars were addressed, but<br>
> we also think it is a prudent and fair approach to carefully and<br>
> meaningfully consider and weigh the input from an important group that<br>
> will be impacted by the policy changes, even if that stakeholder is not<br>
> a contracted party. The NPOC supports open discussion and the value of<br>
> inputs from important stakeholders when considering the language and<br>
> creation of reports and policy development.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I ask the NCSG members to consider the perspective that some NGOs, non<br>
> profits and end users will benefit from robust improvements that will<br>
> assist law enforcement address Internet crime. We respect that some in<br>
> NCSG may not agree; however, I look forward to sharing this important<br>
> perspective as a NSCG Councilor, if elected. Also, I think NCSG<br>
> leadership should encourage its members to share their perspectives.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Debbie<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> ________________________________<br>
><br>
> From: Robin Gross [mailto:<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>]<br>
> Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:26 PM<br>
> To: Hughes, Debra Y.; <a href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
> Subject: for Debbie: Explaining votes made while representing NCSG while<br>
> on GNSO Council<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Debbie,<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> I listened to the audio<br>
</div></div>> <<a href="http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp" target="_blank">http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp</a>> of<br>
<div class="im">> yesterday's GNSO Council call and was surprised that you broke with all<br>
> the NCSG GNSO Councilors and instead voted with the Intellectual<br>
> Property Constituency (IPC) against Motion 3 which deals with providing<br>
> law enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (at about 1<br>
> hr). The IPC stated it would vote against the motion because it did not<br>
> give law enforcement enough of what it wanted (i.e. it was "too soft"<br>
> and didn't collect enough info on people).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Would you be willing to explain to the NCSG why you voted with the IPC<br>
> instead of the NCSG (and the rest of the GNSO Council) on this issue<br>
> (Motion 3) in yesterday's GNSO Council Meeting?<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Thank you,<br>
><br>
> Robin<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held<br>
> on Thursday, 6 October 2011 at:<br>
> <a href="http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3" target="_blank">http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3</a><br>
> <<a href="http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3" target="_blank">http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3</a>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> on page<br>
><br>
> <a href="http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct" target="_blank">http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> Agenda Item 5: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal<br>
> activity (10 minutes)<br>
><br>
> A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with<br>
> regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity.<br>
><br>
> Motion<br>
</div>> <<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Sept" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Sept</a><br>
> ember+2011> deferred from 22 September Council meeting<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">><br>
> Refer to motion: 3<br>
> <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+Octob" target="_blank">https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+Octob</a><br>
> er+2011<br>
><br>
> 5.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz)<br>
> 5.2 Discussion<br>
><br>
> 5.3 Vote<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> IP JUSTICE<br>
><br>
> Robin Gross, Executive Director<br>
><br>
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA<br>
><br>
> p: <a href="tel:%2B1-415-553-6261" value="+14155536261">+1-415-553-6261</a> f: <a href="tel:%2B1-415-462-6451" value="+14154626451">+1-415-462-6451</a><br>
><br>
> w: <a href="http://www.ipjustice.org" target="_blank">http://www.ipjustice.org</a> e: <a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>