NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Carlos Afonso <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 23 Apr 2006 11:11:56 -0300
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (130 lines)
Excellent! I will change Ashley's sex and surname, include the very 
relevant modifications suggested by Milton, and send the message 
according to Norbert's suggestion.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Norbert Klein wrote:
> Agreed, that you send this as the chair of NCUC to Bruce, make it more 
> formal: address it to "Bruce Tonkin, Chair of the GNSO Council" - and 
> copy it also to Glen de Saint Géry (GNSO secretariat - 
> [log in to unmask]).
> 
> 
> Norbert
> 
> =
> 
> Carlos Afonso wrote:
>> People, this is the message and statement Milton and I suggest NCUC 
>> sends Ashley Gross and the GNSO council, with copy to all GAC reps.
>>
>> Please read and send any comments/ammendments asap.
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> ++++++++++++
>> Dear Bruce,
>>
>> Regarding Australia's contribution to GNSO on the Whois issues 
>> recently submitted by the GAC representative Ashley Gross, the NCUC 
>> would like that the statement below be conveyed to her as an official 
>> inquiry from NCUC and copied to GNSO Council, as well as to all GAC 
>> members.
>>
>> fraternal regards
>>
>> --c.a.
>> Carlos A. Afonso
>> Chair, NCUC
>>
>> ===============================================================
>>
>> NCUC statement on Australia's contribution to GNSO on the Whois issues
>> (submitted to GNSO in April, 2006, by the GAC representative Ashley 
>> Gross)
>>
>> 1. We would like to recall the Australian national privacy principles 
>> (at http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html), which, under 
>> the heading "Use and disclosure", state: "An organisation must not use 
>> or disclose personal information about an individual for a purpose 
>> (the secondary purpose) other than the primary purpose of collection 
>> unless:
>>
>> "(f) the organisation has reason to suspect that unlawful activity has 
>> been, is being or may be engaged in, and uses or discloses the 
>> personal information as a necessary part of its investigation of the 
>> matter or in reporting its concerns to relevant persons or 
>> authorities; or
>>
>> (g) the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under law; or
>>
>> (h) the organisation reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is 
>> reasonably necessary for one or more of the following by or on behalf 
>> of an enforcement body:
>>
>> (i) the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or 
>> punishment of criminal offences, breaches of a law imposing a penalty 
>> or sanction or breaches of a prescribed law;
>>
>> (ii) the enforcement of laws relating to the confiscation of the 
>> proceeds of crime;
>>
>> (iii) the protection of the public revenue;
>>
>> (iv) the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of 
>> seriously improper conduct or prescribed conduct;
>>
>> (v) the preparation for, or conduct of, proceedings before any court 
>> or tribunal, or implementation of the orders of a court or
>> tribunal."
>>
>> The Australian national privacy principles also state: "If an 
>> organisation uses or discloses personal information under
>> paragraph (h), it must make a written note of the use or disclosure."
>>
>> So, at least in Australia, law enforcement activities are already 
>> covered under the privacy laws. What is not envisaged in the privacy 
>> laws is that the method to provide data to law enforcement should be 
>> via public publication.
>>
>> There is literally no practical way to restrict the subsequent "use" 
>> of data once it is published in the public.
>>
>> In light of the above, is the Australia GAC representative 
>> contradicting Australia's national policy or suggesting that its laws 
>> be changed?
>>
>> 2. Why is the Australia GAC representative supporting Formulation 2, 
>> when ".au" has a Whois policy and purpose that corresponds to 
>> Formulation 1?
>>
>> 3. If GAC itself has not come to a unified position on Formulation 1 
>> versus Formulation 2 (and we know that it has not), what relevance 
>> does the position of the Australia GAC representative have?
>>
>> April 21st, 2006
>> ====================================================
>>
> 
> 

-- 

Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br

********************************************
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux   *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto,   *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o   *
* Coletivo Digital.                        *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br      *
********************************************

ATOM RSS1 RSS2