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,

Kathy

I will be happy to try and help.

fraternal regards

--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/