thanks for all the substantive work! Great for NCSG, great for best practices. Gracias, Ginger<br clear="all">Ginger (Virginia) Paque<br><br><div><a href="mailto:VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu" target="_blank">VirginiaP@diplomacy.edu</a><br>
<span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small">Diplo Foundation<br>Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme<br><a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/ig" target="_blank">www.diplomacy.edu/ig</a><br><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><div>
<i>The latest from Diplo....</i>From the fundamentals of diplomacy to the most exciting new trends: check our three online courses starting in May 2012: <b>Bilateral Diplomacy</b>, <b>Diplomacy of Small States</b>, and <b>E-diplomacy</b>. Apply now to reserve your place: <a href="http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses" target="_blank">http://www.diplomacy.edu/courses</a><span style="padding-right:16px;width:16px;height:16px"></span><span style="font-family:arial;font-size:small"><b><i><span style="font-size:10pt"></span></i></b></span></div>
</span></div><br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 16 March 2012 14:28, Nicolas Adam <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Amazing work.<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 16/03/2012 11:20 AM, Maria Farrell wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">I also support submitting. (Well, I would, wouldn't
I!)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maria<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 15 March 2012 19:15, Robin Gross <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org" target="_blank">robin@ipjustice.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">GreAt.
Thank you very much. Let's submit.<br>
<div><br>
Robin<br>
<br>
On Mar 15, 2012, at 6:31 PM, Wendy Seltzer <<a href="mailto:wendy@SELTZER.COM" target="_blank">wendy@SELTZER.COM</a>>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>
<div>> Thanks very much to Maria and Joy for
contributions to this, proposed<br>
> comments for the WHOIS RT. Comments are due March
18, but I'd like to<br>
> send them before leaving tomorrow, if possible.<br>
> <<a href="http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm" target="_blank">http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-05dec11-en.htm</a>><br>
><br>
> We would like to commend the general readability of
the report. WHOIS<br>
> has become a very complex issue, and presenting it
so clearly and<br>
> accessibly facilitates participation in both this
consultation process<br>
> and participation more generally. We particularly
appreciate the hard<br>
> work of collecting the WHOIS policies from the
various places where<br>
> they reside.<br>
><br>
> High-level recommendations:<br>
><br>
> The report should explicitly recommend that WHOIS
policy recognize<br>
> that registrants, both individual and
organizations, commercial and<br>
> non-commercial, have a legitimate interest in, *and
in many jurisdictions<br>
> the legal right to, the privacy of their personal
data*.<br>
><br>
> In the normative discussion, privacy should be
given equivalent emphasis<br>
> to accuracy. *It would be instructive in this
regard to reference the<br>
> OECD privacy guidelines, agreed to by all OECD
member countries with input<br>
> from business and civil society. Data accuracy (or
'quality') is considered<br>
> by OECD members to be of equal importance to
purpose specification, use<br>
> limitation and security safeguards, none of which
factors are supported by<br>
> Whois as it currently operates. (OECD Guideline
reference:<br>
> <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html" target="_blank">http://www.oecd.org/document/18/0,3343,en_2649_34255_1815186_1_1_1_1,00.html</a><br>
> ) *<br>
><br>
> It is as important that registrants have privacy as
that<br>
> their data be accurately recorded. At the moment,
the report appears,<br>
> from its emphasis on access and accuracy, to
discount those privacy<br>
> concerns *that are accepted by all OECD member
states and participating<br>
> business and civil society actors as having equal
importance.*<br>
><br>
><br>
> Section F. Findings<br>
><br>
> The brief ‘tour de table’ provides useful
background reading, but<br>
> *should* include<br>
> reference to the fact that ICANN’s Whois policies
are<br>
> incompatible with the OECD privacy guidelines and
also applicable national<br>
> laws in many countries, including<br>
> member states of the European Union.*The European
Union's Article 29<br>
> Working Party of national data protection officers
provided specific input<br>
> to ICANN's 2003 Montreal meeting regarding the many
ways gTLD Whois<br>
> breaches EU law. These included the lack of
definition of a purpose of<br>
> Whois, lack of use limitation, misuse of Whois data
by third parties and<br>
> the disproportionality of the publication of
personal data. The Article 29<br>
> Working Party concluded that "there is no legal
ground justifying the<br>
> mandatory publication of personal data referring to
this person. (the<br>
> registrant)". *<br>
><br>
> *(Article 29 WP reference: Opinion 2/2003 on the
application of the data<br>
> protection principles*<br>
><br>
> *to the Whois directories *<br>
> <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf" target="_blank">http://ec.europa.eu/justice/policies/privacy/docs/wpdocs/2003/wp76_en.pdf</a>)<br>
><br>
> *It is very concerning that the findings of the
Whois Review Team do not<br>
> consider the glaring fact of the illegality of gTLD
Whois requirements in<br>
> many jurisdictions, and the incompatibility of
Whois as it currently stands<br>
> with the only internationally accepted guidelines
on data privacy. *<br>
><br>
><br>
> Section G. Recommendations<br>
><br>
> 1. Single Whois Policy - "The Board should oversee
the creation of a<br>
> single Whois policy document."<br>
><br>
> We welcome the call for a single Whois policy that
sets out the<br>
> requirements, globally and facilitates registrants
who wish to consult<br>
> those requirements. Whois ‘policy’ is currently
inferred from registry<br>
> and registrar contracts.* A single Whois policy
should be compatible with<br>
> the internationally accepted OECD privacy
guidelines, in respect of a<br>
> statement of purpose for the use of data, use
limitation, data accuracy and<br>
> appropriate security safeguards for personal data.*
However, gTLD policy<br>
> development is the<br>
> responsibility of the GNSO, not the Board (until
the final stages),<br>
> and needs to be developed through the bottom up
process, with the<br>
> cooperation of the multiple stakeholders affected.<br>
><br>
> 3 - "Make Whois a Strategic Priority"<br>
><br>
> Change "Strategic Priority" to "Strategic
Consideration." As the<br>
> review team was focused only on WHOIS, it was in no
position to<br>
> analyze the tradeoffs involved in setting global
priorities. Many<br>
> items on ICANN's policy agenda *may be considered*
more worthy of the<br>
> community's<br>
> limited time and attention. *The appropriate
process for the community to<br>
> prioritize issues such as Whois is via the
Strategic Plan.* No evidence<br>
> is offered in this report to support prioritizing<br>
> WHOIS o*ver other issues of importance to the
community as a whole.*<br>
><br>
> 5 - Data Accuracy - As many law enforcement
comments in the report<br>
> suggest, contactability is more important than
"accuracy." Separation<br>
> of the contact details from the public display
could enhance the<br>
> accuracy of the contact details available to
appropriately qualified<br>
> requesters.<br>
><br>
> 10-16. "Data Access: Privacy and Proxy Services."<br>
><br>
> The recommendations should explicitly acknowledge
the importance of<br>
> privacy and proxy services in providing options to
legitimate Internet<br>
> users to preserve their privacy. National laws in
the United States,<br>
> for example, recognize privacy interests not only
for individuals, but<br>
> for associations. The report further documents the
legitimate<br>
> interests of even commercial Internet users in
private domain name<br>
> registrations.<br>
> * In relation to the references to national
legislation: it is<br>
> important to note that this reference may be
problematic if national<br>
> legislation violates international human rights
standards, for example,<br>
> relating to freedom of expression (see the citation
of this report below).<br>
> * Freedom of association: proxy registration
services can support the<br>
> rights of human rights defenders to carry out
lawful activity without<br>
> persecution. Threats to registrants include
surveillance of registrants<br>
> through use of information which is accessed via
WHOIS data - continuing to<br>
> expand the nature of information held in WHOIS will
only heighten the<br>
> safety<br>
> concerns of human rights defenders. In addition,
just in time attacks on<br>
> websites of civil society organisations have been
used to disrupt lawful<br>
> activity and democratic participation in a number
of countries: see<br>
> Deibert,<br>
> R., Palfrey, J., Rohozinski, R. & Zittrain, J.
(Eds.) (2011). Access<br>
> Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule
in Cyberspace. MIT<br>
> Press.<br>
> * Governments whose legislation is in
violation of these rights<br>
> should<br>
> not be able to rely on such laws when requesting
WHOIS data access and<br>
> proxy<br>
> information. It would be unreasonable to require
Registrars to carry out an<br>
> additional analysis. Other options include:<br>
> (1) Provide that LEA WHOIS data requests may be
refused where there are<br>
> reasonable grounds to believe that such requests
may violate *registrants'<br>
> *<br>
> rights of freedom of expression or freedom of
association<br>
> (2) Require LEA to verify that national laws
comply with human rights<br>
> standards<br>
> (3) Require LEA to verify that WHOIS requests
do not violate<br>
> international human rights standards<br>
><br>
>><br>
> 17 - Data access - "ICANN should set up a
dedicated, multilingual<br>
> interface website to provide thick Whois data for"
COM and NET, who<br>
> have thin whois. This is subject to existing
policy and policy-making<br>
> by the GNSO. It is inappropriate for the Review
Team to intervene at<br>
> this level of detail into the GNSO policy process,
*and in a way that<br>
> privileges certain substantive outcomes over
others.*<br>
><br>
><br>
> Section E. Work of this RT<br>
><br>
> A factual point. There is only one Chatham House
rule, so the statement<br>
> referring to it should use the singular.<br>
><br>
> Freedom of Expression References:<br>
><br>
> As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of
Opinion and Expression<br>
> in his annual report of 2011:<br>
><br>
> 23. The vast potential and
benefits of the Internet are<br>
> rooted in its unique characteristics, such as its
speed, worldwide reach<br>
> and<br>
> relative anonymity. At the same time, these
distinctive features of the<br>
> Internet that enable individuals to disseminate
information in "real time"<br>
> and to mobilize people has also created fear
amongst Governments and the<br>
> powerful. This has led to increased restrictions on
the Internet through<br>
> the<br>
> use of increasingly sophisticated technologies to
block content, monitor<br>
> and<br>
> identify activists and critics, criminalization of
legitimate expression,<br>
> and adoption of restrictive legislation to justify
such measures. In this<br>
> regard, the Special Rapporteur also emphasizes that
the existing<br>
> international human rights standards, in particular
article 19, paragraph 3<br>
> of the ICCPR, remain pertinent in determining the
types of restrictions<br>
> that<br>
> are in breach of States' obligations to guarantee
the right to freedom of<br>
> expression.<br>
> 24. As set out in article 19,
paragraph 3 of the ICCPR,<br>
> there are certain, exceptional types of expression
which may be<br>
> legitimately<br>
> restricted under international human rights law,
essentially to safeguard<br>
> the rights of others. This issue has been examined
in the previous annual<br>
> report of the Special Rapporteur. However, the
Special Rapporteur deems it<br>
> appropriate to reiterate that any limitation to the
right to freedom of<br>
> expression must pass the following three-part,
cumulative test:<br>
> (1) it must be provided by law, which is clear
and accessible to<br>
> everyone (principles of predictability and
transparency); and<br>
> (2) it must pursue one of the purposes set out
in article 19, paragraph<br>
> 3 of the ICCPR, namely (i) to protect the rights or
reputations of others,<br>
> or (ii) to protect national security or of public
order, or of public<br>
> health<br>
> or morals (principle of legitimacy); and<br>
> (3) it must be proven as necessary and the
least restrictive means<br>
> required to achieve the purported aim (principles
of necessity and<br>
> proportionality).<br>
> Moreover, any legislation
restricting the right to<br>
> freedom of expression must be applied by a body
which is independent of any<br>
> political, commercial, or other unwarranted
influences in a manner that is<br>
> neither arbitrary nor discriminatory, and with
adequate safeguards against<br>
> abuse, including the possibility of challenge and
remedy against its<br>
> abusive<br>
> application.<br>
> And further:<br>
><br>
> 26 However, in many instances, States
restrict, control, manipulate and<br>
> censor content disseminated via the Internet
without any legal basis, or on<br>
> the basis of broad and ambiguous laws; without
justifying the purpose of<br>
> such actions; and/or in a manner that is clearly
unnecessary and/or<br>
> disproportionate to achieve the intended aim, as
explored in the following<br>
> sections. Such actions are clearly incompatible
with States' obligations<br>
> under international human rights law, and often
create a broader chilling<br>
> effect on the right to freedom of opinion and
expression.<br>
> (full reference: Frank La Rue "Report of the
Special Rapporteur on the<br>
> promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression"<br>
> (26 April 2011, A/HRC/17/27) also available at: <a href="http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N" target="_blank">http://scr.bi/z6lZ8N</a> )<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Wendy Seltzer -- <a href="mailto:wendy@seltzer.org" target="_blank">wendy@seltzer.org</a>
<a href="tel:%2B1%20914-374-0613" value="+19143740613" target="_blank">+1 914-374-0613</a><br>
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project<br>
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society
at Harvard University<br>
> <a href="http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html" target="_blank">http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.chillingeffects.org/" target="_blank">https://www.chillingeffects.org/</a><br>
> <a href="https://www.torproject.org/" target="_blank">https://www.torproject.org/</a><br>
> <a href="http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/" target="_blank">http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/</a><br>
><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote></div><br>