for Debbie: Explaining votes made while representing NCSG while on GNSO Council

[Debra Hughes]

Thanks for your question, Robin.  My vote reflects the considered
opinion of the NPOC community.  During the discussion of the motion, Tim
Ruiz (the maker) explained the dissatisfaction by the law enforcement
community that important requests from their community were not included
among the possible policy revisions that would be considered in the
issues report.  Since the purpose of this request is intended to "assist
law enforcement in its long-term effort to address Internet-based
criminal activity" it seemed only reasonable that the scope of the
Issues report would include possible policy additions and revisions that
are very important to the group for which the initiative is designed to
assist.  It appears the interests of the registrars were addressed, but
we also think it is a prudent and fair approach to carefully and
meaningfully consider and weigh the input from an important group that
will be impacted by the policy changes, even if that stakeholder is not
a contracted party.  The NPOC supports open discussion and the value of
inputs from important stakeholders when considering the language and
creation of reports and policy development.  

 

I ask the NCSG members to consider the perspective that some NGOs, non
profits and end users will benefit from robust improvements that will
assist law enforcement address Internet crime.   We respect that some in
NCSG may not agree; however, I look forward to sharing this important
perspective as a NSCG Councilor, if elected.  Also, I think NCSG
leadership should encourage its members to share their perspectives.

 

Debbie

 

 

________________________________

From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin at ipjustice.org] 
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:26 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Subject: for Debbie: Explaining votes made while representing NCSG while
on GNSO Council

 

Debbie,

 

I listened to the audio
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp>  of
yesterday's GNSO Council call and was surprised that you broke with all
the NCSG GNSO Councilors and instead voted with the Intellectual
Property Constituency (IPC) against Motion 3 which deals with providing
law enforcement assistance on addressing criminal activity (at about 1
hr).  The IPC stated it would vote against the motion because it did not
give law enforcement enough of what it wanted (i.e. it was "too soft"
and didn't collect enough info on people).  

 

Would you be willing to explain to the NCSG why you voted with the IPC
instead of the NCSG (and the rest of the GNSO Council) on this issue
(Motion 3) in yesterday's GNSO Council Meeting?

 

Thank you,

Robin

 

 

 

Please find the MP3 recording of the GNSO Council teleconference, held
on Thursday, 6 October 2011 at:
http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3
<http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-council-20111006-en.mp3> 

 

on page

http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#oct

 

Agenda Item 5: Law Enforcement assistance on addressing criminal
activity (10 minutes)

A motion is being made to recommend action by the ICANN Board with
regards to addressing Internet-based criminal activity.

Motion
<https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+22+Sept
ember+2011>  deferred from 22 September Council meeting

Refer to motion: 3 
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+Octob
er+2011

5.1 Reading of the motion (Tim Ruiz)
5.2 Discussion

5.3 Vote

 

 

IP JUSTICE

Robin Gross, Executive Director

1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA

p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451

w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org





 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111012/4f506444/attachment-0001.html>