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

Katitza Rodriguez katitza at EFF.ORG
Fri Oct 14 21:48:35 CEST 2011


How many members does NPOC has?

Many thanks

Katitza
On 10/14/11 12:43 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Alain
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <ca at cafonso.ca
> <mailto:ca at cafonso.ca>> wrote:
>
>     Spock-logical answer... :)
>
>     Fascinating. Now we have a "law enforcement community". Now the
>     repressing agents are put all in the same basket as an interest
>     group! I
>     thought civil society's focus in vying for rights was to debate and
>     dialogue with law makers, not the guys who go kicking and arresting
>     people under orders of those law makers, to put it bluntly. Soon
>     we will
>     have the flics-and-cops constituency, supported by NPOC?
>
>     Your argument does not stick, simply, Debbie.
>
>     --c.a.
>
>     On 10/12/2011 10:21 AM, Debra Hughes wrote:
>     > 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
>     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>]
>     > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:26 PM
>     > To: Hughes, Debra Y.; NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>     <mailto: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 <tel:%2B1-415-553-6261>    f: +1-415-462-6451
>     <tel:%2B1-415-462-6451>
>     >
>     > w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>     <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
>
> --
> Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
> Member, Board of Directors, CECI, http://www.ceci.ca
> <http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
> Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business,
> www.schulich.yorku.ca <http://www.schulich.yorku.ca>
> Trustee, GKP Foundation, www.globalknowledgepartnership.org
> <http://www.globalknowledgepartnership.org>
> Vice Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
> O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
> Skype: alain.berranger
>


--
Katitza Rodriguez
International Rights Director
Electronic Frontier Foundation
katitza at eff.org
katitza at datos-personales.org (personal email)

Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111014/51350346/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Ncuc-discuss mailing list