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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

I hope that it is understood that the private data is presumed and assumed 
private. Therefor it logically follows that allowing LEAs access is only 
according to law and not as though, to them it is public. It is still private 
data and due process must be followed in obtaining the information. 
   
  This makes the burden on third party private concerns doubly hard, in order 
to break through the privacy curtain. I am not certain, and both Wout and 
Palmer have made good cases, that banking has met that burdern while LEAs have 
met theirs.
   
  The concept that private IP concerns are interested in the data to protect 
consumers is very interesting and I think requires some thought.
   
  Eric

Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> wrote:
  
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 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and broad access to the unpublished information versus a situation 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.


       
---------------------------------
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more.