Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Wrapping up
- To: <gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Wrapping up
- From: "Carole Bird" <Carole.Bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 08:58:49 -0400
To expedite providing you my feedback on the last draft of the document I'm
sending this to you without having had a chance to read the emails pertaining
to this draft over the past day or so. Therefore, I apologize if there are any
duplicate requests for changes in this submission.
Here are my recommendations regarding changes:
1. Firstly I think the points that Wout made regarding better outlining
definitions to ensure that everyone is speaking about the same thing is key.
For example, "due process" means very different things to a number of different
people. If it means that "persons/agencies must be identified as having a
legislative mandate to investigate an offence", I have no concerns with same.
However, if it means" you require a court order" than this is one of those
things that needs to be discussed in greater depth as it will effectively
prevent police from being able to access the data. I don't believe that was
the sentiment of the group nor could I support same. (I could provide more
clarity on the specifics of that issue if required).
2. With regards to the paragraph on Public LEAs. I would recommend that the
last line read " but there was agreement that a basic institutional framework
for handling this problem may already exist" .
3. Regarding Private Parties: Where it states "There were some suggestions
that private parties obtain access to data indirectly, via their national
LEAs." I would recommend that we add a line following that sentence stating
"There was some indication that National LEAs may not legally be able to
perform this function".
4. With regards to Degree of Access Granted :
- with regards to Type 2 I think we need to state that no agreement was
reached on the auditing/record-keeping methodology and that further research
and discussion be held regarding this topic to ensure that whatever
record-keeping/audit requirements are proposed have direct input from
LEAs/Governments to ensure suitability and feasibility.
5. With regards to Type 4 access, I would recommend the line "Private parties
obtain access to the shielded information through an LEA under due process of
law" be changed to read " Private parties obtain access to the shielded
information through their respective governments or through an agency
designated by their governments where permitted national law". This will allow
countries flexibility to work within a framework without ICANN dictating who in
the Government should be the touch point for private parties.
Certainly without better defining the issues outlined above, at this point I
would be recommending/supporting Type 3 access for LEAs. That may still be the
case once we have better defined terminologies as well as the way ahead -
however, I am still hopeful that with good bi-lateral dialogue the issues can
>>> "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@xxxxxxx> 06/04/07 11:59 AM >>>
Last call for minor modifications/corrections of the SGB report. Late
tomorrow I will transmit to Philip Shepherd and the main WG. This report
is, of course, only an input to the main group and is intended to makes
its work easier.