>
> Alain
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Carlos A. Afonso <
[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]]
>>> 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
>>> <
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 f:
+1-415-462-6451
>>>
>>> w:
http://www.ipjustice.org e:
[log in to unmask]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
--