[discuss] discuss Digest, Vol 4, Issue 145

Mon Mar 17 12:15:30 UTC 2014

Laws with extraterritorial effect are not limited to the US and EU 
privacy laws are much stricter for commercial entities than governmental 
entities.  Also note that in the reform process of Directive 95/46 
lawful access issues are covered in a Directive that will be separate 
from the draft regulation.  A number of EU nations are well known for 
protecting rights of data subjects, but since the focus of this list is 
lawful and national security access a review of the processes related to 
that access would be advisable, especially in relation to transparency, 
due process and redress in operation.  It would be best to more specific 
in our musings.

On 3/17/2014 7:36 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote:
> "...several nations known for protecting data rights": this is basically
> Europe with complicated exceptions, right?
>
> --c.a.
>
> On 03/16/2014 06:32 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16-Mar-14 16:56, Steve Crocker wrote:
>>> On Mar 16, 2014, at 4:45 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for IANA, I favor a mesh of MOUs with the clients (ICANN, IETF,
>>>>   Root Server Operators, RIRs, ...) and Host country agreements with
>>>>   several nations known for protecting data rights, with oversight
>>>> by a Multistakeholder panel of IANA Stewards.
>>> Avri,
>>>
>>> You’re specifying a solution.
>> Yes, i was asked for a possible solution so I gave one.  The answer was
>> given more to show that a solution was possible, than to start working
>> on solutions prematurely.
>>
>> I had previously, as you requested, stated a principle.  As far as I
>> could tell, the question stemmed from thinking about the principle I
>> offered and what it might mean in real life.
>>
>> I understand you do not agree with this principle. Nonetheless I persist
>> in believing it is a principle worthy of extended discussion but the
>> wider community.
>>
>>> What’s the problem?
>> The problem is that strict functional separation cannot be done in ICANN
>> as currently constituted.  It is contrary to its organizational
>> structure and to the philosophy of integrating policy with
>> implementation, which I also support.
>>
>> So if you accept the principle of strict functional separation, between
>> policy and administration of the critical IANA resource, we have an
>> implementation problem.
>>
>> For you list of issues, it looks like we have some work to do on
>> defining processes for dealing with such issues while maintining a
>> strict wall between ICANN's policy machinations and the operation of IANA.
>>
>>>> There is also the issue of ICANN being subject to US law.  This
>>>> remains a problem if ICANN plans to keep the administrative
>>>> function after transition.
>>> The question has already been asked and I’ll ask again.  What is the
>>> specific problem about being subject to US law?  As a general matter,
>>> rule of law is usually considered one of the U.S.’s very strongest
>>> qualities.
>>>
>> This has been answered many times by many people, but I will answer yet
>> again.  US law on occasion restricts who a company does business with.
>> Losing NTIA oversight does not change that.  IANA should not be subject
>> to such vagaries of national law.
>>
>> Beyond that, US law allows infractions of rights against the privacy etc
>> of data and pervasive monitoring that may not be appropriate for the
>> future of IANA and which are not consistent with other rule of law
>> jurisdictions.
>>
>> avri
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> discuss mailing list
>> discuss at 1net.org
>> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>>
> _______________________________________________
> discuss mailing list
> discuss at 1net.org
> http://1net-mail.1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss