law enforcers and icann

[Alex Gakuru]

Carlos,

Would you be in a position to assert our voices on this WG?

kindly,

Alex

On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman <Kathy at kathykleiman.com>wrote:

> Hi Carlos and All,
> I attended the same session and had similar concerns to those of Carlos. On
> the good side, for the first time in my recollection of these discussions,
> law enforcement at least discussed and answered questions about the
> importance of due process and data protection/privacy laws.
>
> on the downside, the road to registrars (and their RAA contract changes) is
> being paved with a request for every sort of monitoring and takedown
> request. Christine Jones, the respected General Counsel of GoDaddy,
> complained bitterly about this in the Public Forum.
>
> The other downside is that, in such an important Working Group, there is no
> NCUC representative. I know there are too many things going on, and too many
> important issues, but this one is central. If you can put someone on the WG
> (which has much more work to go), then NCUC's insights, understandings, and
> concerns for due process and the limits of the scope and mission of ICANN
> will have a much stronger voice than comments alone.
>
> Best,
> Kathy
>
>
>  I will be happy to try and help.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> On 06/24/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Wendy Seltzer<wendy at seltzer.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>  Thanks Carlos,
>>>> We should include you in drafting public comments on the RAA report
>>>> which
>>>> attached the law enforcement recommendations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I second Carlos inclusion on the drafters team.
>>>
>>>
>>>  I think at least some of the law enforcement representatives are
>>>> concerned
>>>> about balance, and perhaps we can acknowledge their concerns while
>>>> recommending safeguards and due process requirements to oppose many of
>>>> their
>>>> specific recommendations.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Absolutely! On our comments, please call for privacy law enforcement
>>> representatives also?
>>>
>>> kindly,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> --Wendy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 06/24/2010 06:06 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I have just read the transcript of the panel "Law Enforcement
>>>>> Amendments to the RAA ", held on 21 June, 2010 during the Brussels
>>>>> ICANN
>>>>> meeting. The panel was chaired by ALAC's Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Everyone
>>>>> seemed to be sort of happy of sharing a discussion room full of police
>>>>> :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not understand the role law enforcers are supposed to play in
>>>>> defining ICANN policies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Law enforcers such as the FBI, Interpol etc work on a very simple
>>>>> paradigm: they follow orders, and the more information they get, the
>>>>> better to fulfill the orders they ought to follow. So they will always
>>>>> defend the idea that all private data should be recorded and made
>>>>> available to them whenever they deem necessary. It simply makes their
>>>>> job easier, and this is enough for them, and is all we will hear from
>>>>> them, whatever the nice dressing of their discourses.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, ICANN should be looking for appropriate policies which abide
>>>>> by
>>>>> internationally recognized human rights principles. This is the realm
>>>>> of
>>>>> legislators, policy-makers, regulators -- not law enforcers -- and
>>>>> these
>>>>> are the organizations ICANN should be talking to in deciding policies
>>>>> regarding balancing privacy rights with security.
>>>>>
>>>>> If decisions regarding the users' / consumers' rights to privacy are
>>>>> going to be taken on the advice of the police, I do not think we will
>>>>> arrive at a good end of this story.
>>>>>
>>>>> --c.a.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org
>>>> Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School
>>>> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet&  Society at Harvard University
>>>> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html
>>>> http://www.chillingeffects.org/
>>>> https://www.torproject.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20100628/0c896721/attachment.html>