Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Report for tomorrow

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

On 23 maj 2007, at 15.17, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Thanks, Avri, sorry you can't be with us. I found two aspects of your
> response ambiguous and hope you can clarify:
>
> > > > Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 5/23/2007 1:38 AM >>>
> > I for one think that LEAs also need to go through
> > due process in order to obtain the information they claim to
> > require.  I also assume I am n the minority on this as it stands.
>
> Your "due process" view seems to be fully compatible with the idea  
> that
> LEAs categorically are recognized as a third party with a legitimate
> claim to access.

I guess I think there is a difference between the LEAs having open  
and broad access to the unpublished information versus a situation  
where LEAs still need to go through their legal processes on a case  
by case basis.  I acknowledged that these processes vary with  
national law and circumstance and believe that determining which of  
these processes or LEAs is legitimate  is beyond the mandate of  
ICANN.  So I accept that LEAs are special and that the national laws  
may define special circumstance (such as filing for a warrant after  
the access) that determine the type of procedure they must undergo in  
order to obtain access, but I do not accept that LEAs have access  
simply because they are LEAs.

If, and only if, this is what you mean, then yes, I would agree with  
the proposition, but it was unclear to me that this is what were  
agreeing to.


> > I agree on propositions b-d
>
> Propositions c and d call for straw polls. Does your agreement only
> mean that you think we should hold such straw polls, or are you
> expressing an opinion on the issues? If is it the latter, I will need
> more information, and since you can't be on the call it would be
> appropriate to express your view via email on the list.

i was agreeing with the decision for a straw poll.  as i don't know  
the exact wording of those polls (did i miss that in the email?) i  
find it difficult to indicate how i will respond to the poll.

In general:
- I do _not_ support special sectoral privileges
- I beleive alternative 1, is too loose and believe that suspicion is  
inadequate, but rather that the suspicion needs to be sufficiently  
reasonable and substantiated for the applicable legal processes to  
grant access.  I might also support some form of the agency approach  
similar to that described by Wout on 23 May - but do not believe that  
this is an option we have before us and assume that it could be  
locally defined as a form of due process.
- I do _not_ support granting 2nd or 3rd degree access.

a.