NCSG Minority report on the EPDP phase 2a final report

Sun Sep 12 13:52:40 EEST 2021

Yes, thank you Tomslin for the explanation. I hope it won’t happen again in
the future.

On Sunday, September 12, 2021, Akinremi Peter Taiwo <compsoftnet at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well said Tomslin.
>
> Regards.
>
> On Sat, 11 Sep. 2021, 11:26 pm Tomslin Samme-Nlar, <mesumbeslin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Greetings members.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Having said that, *I do not support withdrawing the statement*. 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Tomslin
>> PC Chair
>>
>> On Sun., 12 Sep. 2021, 03:20 farzaneh badii, <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, September 11, 2021, Stephanie E Perrin <
>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is a short thread in the PC archives, starting here:
>>>> https://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/2021-September/004093.html
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 2021-09-11 10:17 a.m., farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You should have submitted it in your own capacity. This is not an NCSG
>>>> statement unless the PC approves it.
>>>>
>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 7:52 PM Stephanie E Perrin <
>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie Perrin
>>>>> On 2021-09-10 7:28 p.m., farzaneh badii wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephanie
>>>>>
>>>>> 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:
>>>>>
>>>>> We have also spoken for the rights of gig workers, sole contractors,
>>>>> and independent artists, sales and tradespeople, even though we are
>>>>> explicitly chartered to represent the non-commercial stakeholders.
>>>>> Nobody else is representing these folks, whose numbers 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.  We hope
>>>>> that the contracted parties will address the rights of these individuals,
>>>>> and be careful to ensure that they are treated fairly and with due
>>>>> respect for privacy norms when this policy is implemented.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, September 10, 2021, Stephanie E Perrin <
>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your participation, it is always much appreciated!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Man-ju Chen
>>>>>> On 2021-09-10 4:21 p.m., Stephanie E Perrin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I just edited the Google doc to reflect some of the comments.  We
>>>>>> need to wrap this up guys.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-09-10 9:51 a.m., Bruna Martins dos Santos wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First of all, thanks @Stephanie Perrin
>>>>>> <stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> and @陳曼茹 Manju Chen
>>>>>> <manju at nii.org.tw> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Should we set a deadline for comments ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> link is here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/
>>>>>> 1QJO4R0PNUTj3MDYMbGmjXpAbjTxHzfAl/edit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> best,
>>>>>> Bruna
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Sep 10, 2021 at 12:27 AM Stephanie E Perrin <
>>>>>> stephanie.perrin at mail.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Man-ju Chen and I have been working on a proposed minority statement
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the final report of the EPDP phase 2a group.  We have met over the
>>>>>>> last
>>>>>>> 9 months, the final meeting was last Thursday, and since it appears
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> most SGs and ACs are drafting minority statements to reinforce their
>>>>>>> views, we have crafted a quick two page brief that reiterates many
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the points we have been trying to make, that are not particularly
>>>>>>> visible in the final report.  We can of course comment publicly, but
>>>>>>> that is not as visible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are on deadline for tomorrow, I do apologize for the last minute
>>>>>>> notice but work has been quite hectic on this committee. Your
>>>>>>> comments
>>>>>>> are welcome.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stephanie Perrin and Man-ju Chen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos  *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
>>>>>> <https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
>>>>>> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
>>>>>> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
>>>>>> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
>>>>>> bruna.martinsantos
>>>>>> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Farzaneh
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Farzaneh
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>> NCSG-PC mailing list
>> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
>> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc
>>
>

-- 
Farzaneh
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210912/2c9e5f60/attachment.htm>