Input from the Australian Government on the WHOIS service

[Adam Peake]

Cross not Gross. And Ashley is male. <http://icannwiki.org/Ashley_Cross>

Adam



>People, this is the message and statement Milton 
>and I suggest NCUC sends Ashley Gross and the 
>GNSO council, with copy to all GAC reps.
>
>Please read and send any comments/ammendments asap.
>
>frt rgds
>
>--c.a.
>
>++++++++++++
>Dear Bruce,
>
>Regarding Australia's contribution to GNSO on 
>the Whois issues recently submitted by the GAC 
>representative Ashley Gross, the NCUC would like 
>that the statement below be conveyed to her as 
>an official inquiry from NCUC and copied to GNSO 
>Council, as well as to all GAC members.
>
>fraternal regards
>
>--c.a.
>Carlos A. Afonso
>Chair, NCUC
>
>===============================================================
>
>NCUC statement on Australia's contribution to GNSO on the Whois issues
>(submitted to GNSO in April, 2006, by the GAC representative Ashley Gross)
>
>1. We would like to recall the Australian 
>national privacy principles (at 
>http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html), 
>which, under the heading "Use and disclosure", 
>state: "An organisation must not use or disclose 
>personal information about an individual for a 
>purpose (the secondary purpose) other than the 
>primary purpose of collection unless:
>
>"(f) the organisation has reason to suspect that 
>unlawful activity has been, is being or may be 
>engaged in, and uses or discloses the personal 
>information as a necessary part of its 
>investigation of the matter or in reporting its 
>concerns to relevant persons or authorities; or
>
>(g) the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under law; or
>
>(h) the organisation reasonably believes that 
>the use or disclosure is reasonably necessary 
>for one or more of the following by or on behalf 
>of an enforcement body:
>
>(i) the prevention, detection, investigation, 
>prosecution or punishment of criminal offences, 
>breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction 
>or breaches of a prescribed law;
>
>(ii) the enforcement of laws relating to the 
>confiscation of the proceeds of crime;
>
>(iii) the protection of the public revenue;
>
>(iv) the prevention, detection, investigation or 
>remedying of seriously improper conduct or 
>prescribed conduct;
>
>(v) the preparation for, or conduct of, 
>proceedings before any court or tribunal, or 
>implementation of the orders of a court or
>tribunal."
>
>The Australian national privacy principles also 
>state: "If an organisation uses or discloses 
>personal information under
>paragraph (h), it must make a written note of the use or disclosure."
>
>So, at least in Australia, law enforcement 
>activities are already covered under the privacy 
>laws. What is not envisaged in the privacy laws 
>is that the method to provide data to law 
>enforcement should be via public publication.
>
>There is literally no practical way to restrict 
>the subsequent "use" of data once it is 
>published in the public.
>
>In light of the above, is the Australia GAC 
>representative contradicting Australia's 
>national policy or suggesting that its laws be 
>changed?
>
>2. Why is the Australia GAC representative 
>supporting Formulation 2, when ".au" has a Whois 
>policy and purpose that corresponds to 
>Formulation 1?
>
>3. If GAC itself has not come to a unified 
>position on Formulation 1 versus Formulation 2 
>(and we know that it has not), what relevance 
>does the position of the Australia GAC 
>representative have?
>
>April 21st, 2006
>====================================================
>
>--
>
>Carlos A. Afonso
>diretor de planejamento
>Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
>
>********************************************
>* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
>* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
>* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
>* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
>* Coletivo Digital.                        *
>* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
>********************************************