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

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Milton and all sgb members,

  I don't agree that all LEA's are by definition a "special case".
I DO agree that some if not most LEA's can be or are a
"special case".

Milton Mueller wrote:

> OK, thanks very much. Maria scolded me for calling for a straw poll and
> in fact it wasn't really what I wanted if it means counting noses.
>
> I just wanted people to indicate whether they could support or could
> not possibly support certain options, and I think you have done that
> quite well below.
>
> >>> Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx> 5/23/2007 10:09 AM >>>
>
> 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 and broad access to the unpublished information versus a situation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.

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
 Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827