[NCSG-PC] NCSG Minority report on the EPDP phase 2a final report

Sun Sep 12 01:25:43 EEST 2021

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210912/73f0e5fe/attachment.htm>