Cross not Gross. And Ashley is male. <http://icannwiki.org/Ashley_Cross> Adam >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 * >********************************************