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]]
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011
1:26 PM
To: Hughes, Debra Y.;
[log in to unmask]
Subject: for Debbie: Explaining
votes made while representing NCSG while on GNSO Council
Debbie,
I listened to the audio 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
on page
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 deferred
from 22 September Council meeting
Refer to motion:
3
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+06+October+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