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,KathyI will be happy to try and help.fraternal regards--c.a.On 06/24/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote:Thanks Carlos,We should include you in drafting public comments on the RAA report whichattached the law enforcement recommendations.I second Carlos inclusion on the drafters team.I think at least some of the law enforcement representatives are concernedabout balance, and perhaps we can acknowledge their concerns whilerecommending safeguards and due process requirements to oppose many of theirspecific recommendations.Absolutely! On our comments, please call for privacy law enforcementrepresentatives also?kindly,AlexBest,--WendyOn 06/24/2010 06:06 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:I have just read the transcript of the panel "Law EnforcementAmendments to the RAA ", held on 21 June, 2010 during the Brussels ICANNmeeting. The panel was chaired by ALAC's Cheryl Langdon-Orr. Everyoneseemed 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 indefining ICANN policies.Law enforcers such as the FBI, Interpol etc work on a very simpleparadigm: they follow orders, and the more information they get, thebetter to fulfill the orders they ought to follow. So they will alwaysdefend the idea that all private data should be recorded and madeavailable to them whenever they deem necessary. It simply makes theirjob easier, and this is enough for them, and is all we will hear fromthem, whatever the nice dressing of their discourses.However, ICANN should be looking for appropriate policies which abide byinternationally recognized human rights principles. This is the realm oflegislators, policy-makers, regulators -- not law enforcers -- and theseare the organizations ICANN should be talking to in deciding policiesregarding balancing privacy rights with security.If decisions regarding the users' / consumers' rights to privacy aregoing to be taken on the advice of the police, I do not think we willarrive at a good end of this story.--c.a.--Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask]Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law SchoolFellow, Berkman Center for Internet& Society at Harvard University