Yes we should be very concerned. I have been told that the European Union is very much concerned with this issue as well since it detrimentally fails to take into consideration privacy issues, which in Europe are considered a priority. The issue here is that the RAA sees law enforcement agencies becoming way too involved in a process that falls completely outside their mandate. By the RAA team made a smart move in getting the approval from those agencies that represent the US (FBI), EU (INTERPOL) and the UK – this, however, should not mean that these agencies also represent the governments and individual users of these countries. Such an agreement for instance would even manage to go through Congress, so there is no justification no legal rationale behind it.



KK





On 24/06/2010 11:13, "Wendy Seltzer" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:



Thanks Carlos,

We should include you in drafting public comments on the RAA report

which attached the law enforcement recommendations.



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.



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 -- [log in to unmask]

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/