Hi Wendy, I will be happy to help.

--c.a.

On 06/24/2010 07:13 AM, Wendy Seltzer 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.
>>
>>
>
>