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 <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] > > Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 1:26 PM > > To: Hughes, Debra Y.; [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > 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: [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 [log in to unmask] [log in to unmask] (personal email) Please support EFF - Working to protect your digital rights and freedom of speech since 1990