Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm discussion

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

This is also interestng in that it shows the attitude toward such claims by law 
enforcement.

I am not sure why we expect ICANN to enforce claims that law enforcement will 
not honor.  One argument has been that we should acquiesce to protections 
because the law requires it.  But the more we look the more it appears that the 
law does not require it (of course we are waiting for the final word from 
legal)  Therefore there will need to be other reasons for ICANN to create a 
policy for such protections.  

For some in the group, it seems like showing cases of harm may be 
necessary/beneficial for deciding on policy.  On the other hand, showing harm 
as an admission basis would be another story and one which your anecdote might 
argue against.

avri

On 7 Feb 2013, at 20:30, Christopher Lamb wrote:

> 
> Dear Alan and Thomas,
> 
> One thing you might like to have in mind is an experience we had in IFRC 
> after the 2004 Tsunamis.  A web fraud based on abuse of the redcross name was 
> brought to the attention of the FBI because, among other things, it asserted 
> a fax address in Los Angeles.  The response was that they wouldn't take 
> action until and unless we produced evidence of an American citizen victim.  
> We pointed out (to sympathetic people in the State Department) that this 
> wasn't the point at all, and furthermore that by the time we had a "victim" 
> the game would have been lost.  These fraudsters set out to get their money 
> in the first couple of days after the disaster strikes, when it's still 
> newsworthy, and the victim doesn't usually know that s/he is a victim at all 
> for much longer than that.  The FBI remained unimpressed, but we got what we 
> needed in the end from Interpol after the intervention of a police force in 
> another country named in the fraud.
> 
> This is, however, something of a distraction from the point about the 
> provision of protection to those organisations which receive it at all other 
> levels of public information dissemination.  International and national law 
> and the obligations on governments therefrom are critically important 
> considerations, and were obligations accepted by governments for specific 
> reasons (for example in the 1949 Geneva Conventions) without the need for any 
> discussion of the quality of evidence of harm.
> 
> All the best
> 
> Chris
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg
> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 10:18 AM
> To: Thomas Rickert ; gnso-igo-ingo@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [gnso-igo-ingo] Nature of the problem / Evidence of harm 
> discussion
> 
> 
> 1. Yes, but I think the question is phrased slightly incorrectly.
> Your wording could be taken to mean that we would only grant
> protections to a particular organization if they can demonstrate
> previous harm. My interest is to try to understand the range of harms
> and protective actions taken prior to trying to establish the
> criteria for granting special protections.
> 
> 2. Not applicable.
> 
> At 07/02/2013 03:18 PM, Thomas Rickert wrote:
> 
>> All,
>> following up on yesterday's call I would like to ask all of you to answer 
>> either of the following questions. As you will remember, there was some 
>> debate surrounding the question if and what evidence of harm needs to be 
>> presented to the group and Chuck proposed the following questions, which I 
>> have modified a bit:
>> 
>> 1. Are there those who want to see evidence of harm before considering 
>> granting protections?
>> 
>> 2. Are there those who are requiring protections who are unwilling to 
>> provide information? If so, are you offering other or a subset of the 
>> information required according to the survey sheet.
>> 
>> Please answer the question by next Tuesday.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Thomas 
> 
>