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

Holly Raiche h.raiche at internode.on.net
Mon Sep 10 22:42:41 UTC 2012


Thanks Carlton

The real challenge will not be the principle: when I sat in the Whois Review team discussions, there was general acceptance of the need to protect those groups that may be at risk in certain political situations.  The challenge is putting the generally agreed principle into words - how to describe human rights groups in a way that identifies those groups/individuals that will be at risk while not giving the same protection to those who would take advantage for nefarious purposes (the SSAC work showed a large number of people in malware/criminal activity using the privacy/proxy server device to hide their identity.)  So it is a clear case of the devil in the detail.  And the other challenge is defining who gets access to those details and in what circumstance.  Again - a very vexed question.

Yes, it is a real issue for ALAC - but once we get beyond principle, it will be a complex set of issues

Holly
On 11/09/2012, at 1:58 AM, Carlton Samuels 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
> 
> 




More information about the At-Large mailing list