[[--Translated text (en -> es)--]] Asunto: Re: FW: Actualización sobre las Negociaciones RAA desde Praga De: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro@gmail.com También me gustaría añadir que las amenazas que acompañan al TPP da lugar a lo que Holly se menciona en términos de "aplicación de la ley privada" donde marca IP titulares, en virtud de preaviso directamente puede tener acceso. Esta es la razón leyes deben ser debatidas por la gente en los parlamentos o legislativas Asambleas. ¿Qué pasa con "Debido Proceso"? Lo que constituye un incautación legal de un Nombre de Dominio? El Martes, 11 sep 2012 a las 3:58 AM, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com> escribió:

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@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@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@icann.org" <soac-discussion@icann.org> Cc: Matt Serlin <matt.serlin@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+Regis...

...

...

****

Sincerely,

****

Kurt Pritz (ICANN) and Matt Serlin (MarkMonitor)

****

****

****

****

****

****

** ** <smime.p7s>_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro alias Sala PO Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @ SalanietaT Skype: Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Celular Fiji: +679 998 2851 _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (en) http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8ab4b75018.html --]]