Dear people,

When ICANN proposed to hold their meeting in Nairobi, there came an 
avalanche of reports and fears -- above all, a statement from the US 
government warning all of us not to go due to serious security concerns.

The ones who went (I was there) found a wonderful people, a nice 
country, we learned a lot visiting museums and other places -- above 
all, we were at least as safe as in our home towns.

Now, in Brussels, one of us had its bag forcefully stolen at the central 
train station. Nothing of this sort happened in Kenya. Our NCUC friend 
Marcelo Fernandes Costa had about Eu5,000 in equipment and money stolen 
in the capital of Europe. When he approached a policeman to report the 
robbery, the Belgian shook his shoulders as if saying "nothing new...".

Why didn't the US government and other "mandarins of worldwide security" 
warn us about the serious risks we run when in civilized Europe???

--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/
>>
>