<html>
  <head>
    <meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
      http-equiv="Content-Type">
  </head>
  <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
    How many members does NPOC has?<br>
    <br>
    Many thanks<br>
    <br>
    Katitza<br>
    On 10/14/11 12:43 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
    <blockquote
cite="mid:CANgs+SsR6=9UUqqCUS4Rr3wdCHLHEV9LPPTfkVU4baiv=BUrJg@mail.gmail.com"
      type="cite">Can we all agree that there is malfeasance on the Web
      and that it should be brought down as often and as much as
      possible? The raft of cybersecurity legislation around the world's
      legislations is probably a confirmation of the seriousness and
      extent of the problem. However it is accepted widely that we must
      strike a balance between fighting cybercrime and ensuring data
      protection/privacy. How much privacy should a criminal have in the
      accomplishment of the crime?... so whatever our personal views on
      that, please let's allow for all positions along that spectrum and
      allow for debate. 
      <div>
        <br>
      </div>
      <div>In any case, the issue here seems to me to be more micro and
        internal - since NCSG is now made up of both NCUC and NPOC, we
        should apply freedom of expression principles in house and
        sometimes agree to disagree if the debate stalls - so I venture
        to say that now an NCSG consensus does not extend only from an
        NCUC concensus as it did in the past, but from both NCUC and
        NPOC constituencies. It is quite clear to me by now that NPOC
        leadership and NCUC leadership are not often in sync. Since NCUC
        leadership is controlling NCSG (approval of NPOC members and its
        impact on the election process, travel allocation issues,
        etc...) there is not much space for NPOC to debate.
        <div>
          <br>
        </div>
        <div>Alain<br>
          <br>
          <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM,
            Carlos A. Afonso <span dir="ltr"><<a
                moz-do-not-send="true" 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 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
                    moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a>]<br>
                  > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:26 PM<br>
                  > To: Hughes, Debra Y.; <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                  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 moz-do-not-send="true"
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 class="h5">><br>
                  > Refer to motion: 3<br>
                  > <a moz-do-not-send="true"
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 moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="tel:%2B1-415-553-6261" value="+14155536261">+1-415-553-6261</a>
                     f: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="tel:%2B1-415-462-6451" value="+14154626451">+1-415-462-6451</a><br>
                  ><br>
                  > w: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="http://www.ipjustice.org" target="_blank">http://www.ipjustice.org</a>
                      e: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                    href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                  ><br>
                </div>
              </div>
            </blockquote>
          </div>
          <br>
          <br clear="all">
          <div><br>
          </div>
          -- <br>
          Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
          <div>Member, Board of Directors, CECI, <a
              moz-do-not-send="true"
              href="http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/"
              target="_blank">http://www.ceci.ca</a><br>
            <div>Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, <a
                moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://www.schulich.yorku.ca" target="_blank">www.schulich.yorku.ca</a><br>
              Trustee, GKP Foundation, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org"
                target="_blank">www.globalknowledgepartnership.org</a><br>
              Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, <a moz-do-not-send="true"
                href="http://npoc.org/" target="_blank">http://npoc.org/</a><br>
              O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824<br>
              Skype: alain.berranger<br>
            </div>
          </div>
          <br>
        </div>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
    <br>
    <br>
    <pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@eff.org">katitza@eff.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:katitza@datos-personales.org">katitza@datos-personales.org</a> (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990</pre>
  </body>
</html>