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<[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 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 -- [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/
>>>
>>