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

Sun Sep 12 12:31:59 EEST 2021

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20210912/7471fa64/attachment.htm>