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 > ==================================================== >