<div dir="ltr"><div dir="auto"><div>Greetings members.<div dir="auto"><br></div><div>Hi Farzaneh, thanks for raising this objection and concerns. I agree this was a bit too last minute for my liking as well, as it didn't allow us room to follow procedures properly and to use the proper channels for it. The discussions of the statement on the mailing-list for example happened in the middle of the night my time. The Policy Committee procedures recommend a 24 hour minimum timeframe to evaluate consensus if it is an urgent statement to be issued outside an ICANN physical Meeting.</div><div><br></div><div>Like the PC procedures recommend, for an urgent statement, at least 24 hours from the time the statement is shared with both members and the PC, should have been given. When the PC was informed of the coming statement, I informed our councilors and group chair that I was happy with the statement as long as members had a chance to comment on it and the EPDP members supported the statement. However, it would be difficult to consider the 'chance to comment' as inclusive if it is less than 24 hours, given the timezone differences. Based on this, I don't think the statement should have been submitted.<br></div><div><br></div><div></div><div>Having said that, <b>I do not support withdrawing the statement</b>. I don't believe we should fix the issue by making a bigger mess, especially since the drafters did try to address comments to the statement, albeit the window being short.</div><div><br></div><div>We should however learn from this procedural mistake and strive to make our comment and statement process inclusive. If it is an urgent statement, a 24 hour window must still be given to members and the PC. Future statements should follow all applicable procedures.<br></div><br><div></div><div dir="auto"><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Best regards,<br>Tomslin</div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">PC Chair </div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun., 12 Sep. 2021, 03:20 farzaneh badii, <<a href="mailto:farzaneh.badii@gmail.com" target="_blank">farzaneh.badii@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Silence is never ever consent. In any setting. It might be interpreted as no objection but if given people ample time. you were late. I have never seen during my time at NCSG that someone doesn’t even receive a single ok on a statement from the nondrafters, submits the draft the night of the deadline and with no consultation with the chair submit it as an NCSG statement. We even have processes at NCUC to address these urgent statements and it’s never done like that. <div><br></div><div>These years even NCSG last minute statements even had acceptable approval of the PC. Once some years ago when NCSG PC was silent the comment was submitted by NCUC EC because they were more vocal.<div><br></div><div>This statement is of little importance but I believe you shouldn’t have submitted it without minimal consultation with the PC and given them some days. I raise this objection solely that these events wont be repeated next time. And I leave it to PC to decide if they want to take action. <br><div><div><br>On Saturday, September 11, 2021, Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>There is a short thread in the PC archives, starting here:
<a href="https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2021-September/004093.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2021-September/004093.html</a></p>
<p>The datestamp is odd, because I sent it at 11.26 EST on
Thursday. However, the PC had been warned it was coming at 12:16
pm Thursday. <br>
</p>
<p>I appreciate your concern for procedure, but as an active
participant in policy committee meetings for the last 7 years, I
seem to recall plenty of last minute statement approvals. I
briefed the PC on what was going on at the EPDP at the last
meeting. SIlence is read as consent. Milton raised his
objections, and I attempted to provide language that would cover
his concerns. However, if you wish to have the statement
withdrawn, by all means contact the PC chair, Tomslin. <br>
</p>
<p>Kind regards, <br>
</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 2021-09-11 10:17 a.m., farzaneh
badii wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">You
should have submitted it in your own capacity. This is not an
NCSG statement unless the PC approves it. </div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Farzaneh </span></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:52
PM Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>As I said to the policy committee, I am sorry that this
is so late. Our last (extra) meeting was on Thursday, and
it was really only in the last week that it became
apparent that if we wanted our arguments on the record, we
would need to put in a statement. So yes I did send the
first draft to the policy committee, and no one has
commented from that group. We then immediately sent it to
the list.</p>
<p>WE have been making the argument about gig workers for
several weeks now. These folks would normally be
employees, but they are forced into contractor roles,
largely [in my personal opinion] to avoid the
employer/employee relationship and all the protections
that years of labour law have brought to workers. I have
recognized the need to distance ourselves from them as our
constituents....they cannot be, if they are contractors
working in a commercial sense, although there are some
that might not be excluded from our potential
membership....it depends. Nevertheless, they may have
privacy rights, and this is what the discussion is about.
<br>
</p>
<p>WHen we were dealing with the question of who was
entitled to privacy proxy services, this issue also
surfaced, along with the competitive issues. Big
corporations often use lawyers to register their domains,
for a number of reasons, with or without the use of proxy
services. Small operations, whether commercial or not, do
not do this for many reasons, cost being one. The whole
issue of disclosure of data, personal or not, is a serious
competition issue that never seems to arise in the
discussion.</p>
<p>Kind regards,</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin<br>
</p>
<div>On 2021-09-10 7:28 p.m., farzaneh badii wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> Stephanie
<div><br>
</div>
<div>You gave us only a couple of hours to look at this
and i hope the Policy Committee was consulted. Anyhow
I think you should (if you really wanna send this
statement) delete this paragraph it is absolutely
unrelated to the core of the issue: </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:21.6px;margin-left:18px;font-size:18px"><span>We
have also spoken for the rights of gig workers, sole
contractors, and independent artists, </span><span>sales</span><span> and
tradespeople, even though we are explicitly
chartered to represent the non</span><span>-</span><span>commercial
stakeholders. Nobody else is representing these
folks, whose numbers</span><span> are growing apace
as employment patterns morph with the global
Internet economy. This gap speaks tellingly of the
emphasis on big business, and the lack of focus on
competitive issues which are exacerbated by DNS
policy.</span><span> We hope that the contracted
parties will address the rights of these </span><span>individuals,
and</span><span> be careful to ensure that they are
treated fairly and with due respect for privacy
norms when this policy is implemented.</span></p>
<p style="margin-top:5px;margin-bottom:5px;line-height:21.6px;margin-left:18px;font-size:18px"><span> </span></p>
<br>
On Friday, September 10, 2021, Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>OK folks, Manju and I like the new draft, I put a
line or two in to acknowledge Milton's point (with
which I agree) and off it goes before the deadline
hits.</p>
<p>Thanks for your participation, it is always much
appreciated!</p>
<p>Stephanie Perrin and Man-ju Chen<br>
</p>
<div>On 2021-09-10 4:21 p.m., Stephanie E Perrin
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>I just edited the Google doc to reflect some of
the comments. We need to wrap this up guys. <br>
</p>
<p>cheers Stephanie Perrin</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<div>On 2021-09-10 9:51 a.m., Bruna Martins dos
Santos wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hello all,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First of all, thanks <a class="gmail_plusreply" href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">@Stephanie
Perrin</a> and <a class="gmail_plusreply" href="mailto:manju@nii.org.tw" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">@陳曼茹
Manju Chen</a> for the draft. Although I
know we are on a tight deadline i took the
liberty of transforming the word doc into a
google docs to facilitate the commenting
process - if theres any. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Should we set a deadline for comments ? <br>
<br>
link is here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QJO4R0PNUTj3MDYMbGmjXpAbjTxHzfAl/edit" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QJO4R0PNUTj3MDYMbGmjXpAbjTxHzfAl/edit</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>best, </div>
<div>Bruna</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Sep
10, 2021 at 12:27 AM Stephanie E Perrin <<a href="mailto:stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">stephanie.perrin@mail.utoronto.ca</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear
colleagues,<br>
<br>
Man-ju Chen and I have been working on a
proposed minority statement for <br>
the final report of the EPDP phase 2a
group. We have met over the last <br>
9 months, the final meeting was last
Thursday, and since it appears that <br>
most SGs and ACs are drafting minority
statements to reinforce their <br>
views, we have crafted a quick two page
brief that reiterates many of <br>
the points we have been trying to make, that
are not particularly <br>
visible in the final report. We can of
course comment publicly, but <br>
that is not as visible.<br>
<br>
We are on deadline for tomorrow, I do
apologize for the last minute <br>
notice but work has been quite hectic on
this committee. Your comments <br>
are welcome.<br>
<br>
Kind regards,<br>
<br>
Stephanie Perrin and Man-ju Chen<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><b><i>Bruna Martins dos Santos <br>
</i></b>
<div dir="ltr" style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><br>
</div>
<p style="color:rgb(34,34,34);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font color="#000000"><span style="font-size:11px"></span></font></span></p>
<p style="color:rgb(34,34,34);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">Advocacy
Coordinator | <a href="https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Data
Privacy Brazil Research</a></font></span></font></p>
<p style="color:rgb(34,34,34);margin:0cm 0cm 0.0001pt"><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">Member | <a href="https://direitosnarede.org.br/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Coalizão
Direitos na Rede</a> <br>
Chair</font></span></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> | <a href="https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Non-Commercial
Stakeholder Group at ICANN</a><br>
</span><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font color="#000000">Co-Coordinator</font></span></font><span style="color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> | <a href="https://igcaucus.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">Internet
Governance Caucus </a><br>
</span><font size="2"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></span></font></p>
<div style="color:rgb(34,34,34)"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><font size="1" color="#000000"><font size="2">Twitter: <a href="https://twitter.com/boomartins" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><font color="#1155cc">@</font>boomartins</a> // </font></font></span><span style="color:rgb(32,33,36)">Skype:
bruna.martinsantos</span></div>
</div>
<div><font size="1"><a href="mailto:bruna@dataprivacybr.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bruna@dataprivacybr.org</a> and
<a href="mailto:bruna.mrtns@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">bruna.mrtns@gmail.com</a></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<br>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div><br><br>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div><font face="verdana, sans-serif">Farzaneh </font></div></div><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
</div>