Wilifried and Team:

I would be very cautious about expanding the definition of "Law Enforcement" beyond any organization that has a mandate from the government.  Most of the examples you cite (regulators, etc.) would either qualify themselves under our existing definition, or have a close relationship with a qualifying "Law Enforcement" organization.

On the other hand, there are many private or industry organizations (or even individuals) who would assert that they qualify as "Law Enforcement" under the expanded definition, and we should avoid this.

Thanks--

J.



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Rt4-whois] Draft agenda for London - Draft Working
Definitions
From: "Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet" <Woeber@CC.UniVie.ac.at>
Date: Wed, December 22, 2010 12:11 pm
To: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@icann.org>
Cc: "rt4-whois@icann.org" <rt4-whois@icann.org>

Dear Liz,

thank you for this input, really useful!

The topic I consider to be in need of further discussion, and maybe some
amendment, is "[Public] Law Enforcement"; in particular regarding entities
or organisations that are not fitting the (somewhat narrow) definition off
"governmental agencies", but are still performing oversight and investigation
duties, according to a legal mandate. (Examples: regulators, government
CERTs,...)

Regards,
Wilfried.
_______________________________________________
Rt4-whois mailing list
Rt4-whois@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rt4-whois