[lac-discuss-en] [At-Large] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since Prague

Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com
Mon Sep 10 19:45:12 UTC 2012


I should also add that the threats that accompany the TPP gives rise to
what Holly mentions in terms of "private law enforcement" where IP mark
holders by virtue of serving notice directly can have access. This is why
laws need to be debated by people in Parliaments or Legislative
Assemblies. What happens to "Due Process"? What constitutes a
legal seizure of a Domain Name?

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 AM, Carlton Samuels
<carlton.samuels at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Holly:
> Absolutely, the privacy issues you highlighted do attract spirited debate
> and very emotional responses.  The ALAC has staked out its position and at
> least for the last 3 years, that position has been consistently reiterated:
> a recognition that in furtherance of free speech rights, some groups,
> especially ones that might be politically inconvenient, do indeed deserve
> some protection;  a formal community embrace of defined privacy services
> and their providers; the conditions under which a privacy provider would be
> authorised.
>
> Best,
> - Carlton
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Carlton A Samuels
> Mobile: 876-818-1799
> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> =============================
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 9, 2012 at 8:47 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche at internode.on.net
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Carlton
> >
> > Privacy was one of the really hard issues that the Whois Review had to
> > grapple with.  If you look at the initial report (as opposed to the Final
> > and Final Final reports) two privacy issues are there. The first is how
> to
> > determine registrant eligibility for the privacy server.  Should it be
> > confined to individuals, or include organisations (clear candidates would
> > be human rights groups in many countries, womens' refuges etc)  Trying to
> > define eligibility will be a challenge.   The other challenge is to
> define
> > who has legitimate access to the contact information held by the privacy
> > server. 'Law enforcement agencies' was the initial thought.  But in some
> > countries, private organisations also perform law enforcement tasks under
> > contract to the agency.  They are performing legitimate law enforcement
> > tasks but aren't themselves, agencies.  Should they have access.  Even
> more
> > difficult are the countries where the state itself is the oppressor - and
> >  its 'law enforcement' agencies are the very reason for the need for
> > privacy.
> >
> > I'm sure that is the reason the Final Final report backed away from any
> > details on the proposal - and probably why discussion is being fostered
> now.
> >
> > I suspect there will be many varied and divergent views within ALAC - all
> > of them legitimate. Providing input on what is a complex, vexed issue
> will
> > be a challenge for GAC - and for ALAC.
> >
> > Holly
> >
> > On 08/09/2012, at 12:46 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
> >
> > > FYI.  Note the specific request for advice via GAC on data protection.
> > > - Carlton
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > Carlton A Samuels
> > > Mobile: 876-818-1799
> > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
> > > =============================
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz at icann.org>
> > > Date: Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:26 PM
> > > Subject: [soac-discussion] FW: Update on the RAA Negotiations Since
> > Prague
> > > To: "soac-discussion at icann.org" <soac-discussion at icann.org>
> > > Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin at markmonitor.com>
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear SO/AC Chairs,
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > Recognizing the broad interest in the ICANN community on the RAA
> > > negotiations,  we wanted to provide you with a brief update on the work
> > > conducted since the Prague Meeting for you to share with your members.
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > Since Prague, the negotiation teams have reviewed the input received
> from
> > > the Community in order to identify possible path forwards on the
> complex
> > > issues that have been put on the table in these negotiations.  Several
> > > meetings have taken place and are scheduled prior to Toronto, including
> > > plans to invite the GAC to provide input from data protection experts
> on
> > > several specific issues.  There is also an agreement among the
> > negotiation
> > > teams to begin analysis of a potential framework for a privacy/proxy
> > > accreditation program to be explored with the broader ICANN community.
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > For more information on these important negotiations, please visit the
> > > ICANN wiki at:
> > >
> >
> https://community.icann.org/display/RAA/Negotiations+Between+ICANN+and+Registrars+to+Amend+the+Registrar+Accreditation+Agreement
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > Sincerely,
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > ****
> > >
> > > ** **
> > > <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________
> > > At-Large mailing list
> > > At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
> > >
> > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>



-- 
Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala
P.O. Box 17862
Suva
Fiji

Twitter: @SalanietaT
Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro
Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851


More information about the lac-discuss-en mailing list