[Rt4-whois] Preliminary Report - 16 Feb - for your consideration

Wed Feb 23 17:51:59 UTC 2011

Dear Kim,

Below is (probably) the discussion about Bill you've mentioned.

Regards,
Omar

2011/2/16 Smith, Bill <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>:
> Comments inline:
>
> On Feb 16, 2011, at 9:08 AM, Lutz Donnerhacke wrote:
>
>> * Smith, Bill wrote:
>>> First, I believe the definitions as presented reasonably capture
>>> the sentiment of most, if not all, members of the Review Team
>>> (including me).
>>
>> Thank you for this approval.
>>
>>> My concern is not with the definitions per se, but rather how they
>>> might be used in other contexts.
>>
>> Current policies does not set up special rules for law enforcement as far as
>> I can see.
>>
>>> For example, are the "legitimate
>>> needs of law enforcement" constrained by Applicable Laws?
>>
>> Of course. That is the instrinctive nature of governmental executive bodies:
>> They are bound to the law. Private cooperations are also bound to the local
>> applicable law.
>
> Are you making a distinction between "Applicable Law", a defined term, and applicable law, an undefined term? If so, then we may be in agreement. Members of society, including corporate entities and law enforcement, are subject to applicable laws, any and all that apply. "Applicable law", undefined, is open to interpretation and subject to change. "Applicable Law", defined term, may have a more limited interpretation and may not be subject to change depending on how we choose to define it.
>
>>
>> But I misread your question. The term "applicable law" in our context deals
>> with the laws for the normal business processes in domain registration and
>> maintainence: The generation and maintainence of whois data. Your question
>> is about access to whois data. That's a different issue.
>
> If I understand your comment, we will have one definition of applicable laws for production, collection, processing, maintenance, etc., and another for use? If that's the case, what is that definition or are we leaving that open to interpretation as suggested above.
>
> Such a definition would need to support the policy as it currently stands which is for unrestricted, public access.
>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Smith, Bill <bill.smith at paypal-inc.com>
Date: 2011/2/16
Subject: [Rt4-whois] Law Enforcement & Applicable Laws
To: "rt4-whois at icann.org WHOIS" <rt4-whois at icann.org>

First, I believe the definitions as presented reasonably capture the
sentiment of most, if not all, members of the Review Team (including
me). My concern is not with the definitions per se, but rather how
they might be used in other contexts. For example, are the "legitimate
needs of law enforcement" constrained by Applicable Laws? Are ICANN's
compliance efforts similarly constrained?

2011/2/23 Kim G. von Arx <kim at vonarx.ca>:
> Hi All:
> My apologies for the long silence from my end.  I did follow the email
> threads and I just saw (and saw in an email a week or so ago) a comment
> that Bill had some comments about applicable laws, but I have not seen any
> emails/comments from Bill on the list wrt to "applicable laws thus far.  I
> may have missed it.  The only discussion I saw so far was on "consumer
> trust".
> Further, I looked at the questionnaire and I am quite confused with the
> questions, e.g.., "government executive agency (like police)"  What does
> that mean? If we are talking about the executive branch of a government then
> "regulatory authority, secrete service, military intelligence services"
> would also be included in the "executive".
> Also, I do not understand what this question means:  "Which kind of law
> would you consider as law enforcement access to WHOIS data"  Is that
> supposed to mean "What laws should be the basis for WHOIS access?"  If so,
> we need to reword it quite a bit to make it clear to native and non-native
> speakers.  However, I am not sure what that question is trying to achieve in
> the first place.  Further some important laws are missing from that list
> such as intellectual property laws (there are very important distinctions
> among real, personal, corporeal, incorporeal... property), regulatory laws,
> admiralty, etc
> The same goes for the question following the above noted one: "Which kind of
> government would you allow law enforcement access to WHOIS data"
> Then the questions wrt to the definition itself:
> 1. What does "enforcement only" mean? What examples does that relate to in
> the previous questions?
> 2. What does "direct government bodies" mean?  What examples does that
> relate to in the previous questions?
> 3. What does it mean to be "subject to judicial an open civil overview"?
>  What examples does that relate to in the previous questions?
> Finally, three more comments about the questionnaire in general:
> 1. We have to make sure that non-native speakers can understand it (unless,
> of course, it will get translated in to x-number of languages)
> 2. We have to make sure that we use less colloquialism to ensure that
> credibility is maintained.
> 3. We have to make sure that the questionnaire meets the general "usability"
> test/standard at the moment it is somewhat confusing.
> Anyway, thanks for the hard work on all of this so far I really appreciate
> it.
> Kim
>
>
> __________________________________
> kim at vonarx.ca
> +1 (613) 286-4445
> "Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars..."
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Feb 2011, at 09:23, Alice Jansen wrote:
>
> Dear Review Team Members,
> Please find attached the preliminary report of your last conference call for
> your consideration.
> Kindly note that Kathy has reviewed this document.
> Thanks,
> Very best regards
> Alice
>
> <WHOIS REVIEW TEAM Prel Rep - 16
> Feb.doc>_______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rt4-whois mailing list
> Rt4-whois at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois
>
>