Hi Wendy, I will be happy to help. --c.a. On 06/24/2010 07:13 AM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > Thanks Carlos, > We should include you in drafting public comments on the RAA report > which attached the law enforcement recommendations. > > 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. > > 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. >> >> > >