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