for Debbie: Explaining votes made while representing NCSG while on GNSO Council
Nicolas Adam
nickolas.adam at GMAIL.COM
Sat Oct 15 19:05:34 CEST 2011
Salut Alain,
I'll preface this by saying that I love your activity on the mailing
list and am glad to be able to exchange with you.
I won't repeat the very good points made by Dan and others, and you
already agreed that those were very good and respectful debate b/w NCUC
and NPOC members.
Note that you could have been part of NCUC, instead of NPOC, I do
believe that both options were open to you (and that they still are, if
i'm not mistaken) and we would then have had a very deeply felt
disagreement about this. I would have opined with Dan, with whom you and
i agree on a lot, I would have probably furthered my point by
paraphrasing Franklin's "he who sacrifice a little liberty for the sake
of a little security deserves neither and will lose them both" (if I
would have beaten Nuno to the punch), and it might have gone on and
forth like this. It still may.
It would not have been about NPOC vs NCUC (NSCG), it would have been
about certain sets of positions on certain sets of issue areas, about
differences of ideas, principles, and view of the world, and how they
relate to policy proposals.
Oddly or not, political groupings agglutinate around certain sets of
policy positions, and I do not find it odd that in a non-commercial
stakeholder group the position that holds that the ancillary rights
noted by Dan, in the final analysis, are the most meaningful things that
you may lose. For a little security and perhaps in view of enabling more
intellectual property enforcement, Debbie voted in favor of weakening
due process and voted towards stronger security and weaker privacy. So
it was not about two constituencies, it was about an extreme minority
point of view being expressed by a representative of a political grouping.
Clearly, there is no problem between you or anyone being part of NPOC
per se, it is just that NPOC seemed to have been formed around a
distinct set of positions on issue areas that are very much minority
points of view here. I would expect that, if I voted for you and you won
-- say because I think your fundraising experiences are a definite plus
-- you would consult us before voting for a little security at the
expense of privacy and liberty, and I would expect that you bring the
debate here, try to convince me, and in the end, go and do what you have
to do without trying to sweep anything under a rug. And you've convinced
me you could that.
Nicolas
On 10/14/2011 3:43 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20111015/bbcca24f/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Ncuc-discuss
mailing list