Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Wrapping up
- To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx>, gnso-acc-sgb@xxxxxxxxx, Carole Bird <Carole.Bird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-acc-sgb] Wrapping up
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2007 11:50:41 -0700 (PDT)
Sometimes a "me too" post is in order. I think the substantive changes were
I believe it reemphasizes the point that existing structure handles a lot of
the revelation data. We do not always have to reinvent the wheel.
Milton Mueller <Mueller@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks for these thoughtful recommendations. I have modified the
document and it is attached.
Let me go through one by one and explain what I did, anyone who objects
can sound off on the list.
>>> "Carole Bird" 6/5/2007 8:58 AM >>>
>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
>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
The word "due process" appears 3 times in the report.
The first time, I have added "existing" due process to show that
we not talking about _creating_ new forms of "due process" but about
_following_ existing due process.
The second time, in the description of Type 1 access, is hypothetical
and in my opinion raises no definitional issues.
The third instance I have modified exactly as you proposed.
>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
>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".
The draft does say that later, so I have added a phrase referring to
>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.
We cannot say no agrement was reached, because we did not discuss any
specific proposals for auditing/record-keeping. So there was neither
agreement nor disagreement, there was simply a recognition that some
kind of accountability would have to be in place. I have therefore added
a line explaining that. Remember, we are dealing with policy not
>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
Yahoo! oneSearch: Finally, mobile search that gives answers, not web links.