James M. Bladel wrote:

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.

If we (can) take that as a common understanding I fully agree. But then it is no longer a proper "definition"? Raising the question if this is necessary, in reality, to achieve our goal...

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.

Very valid point.

Thanks--

J.

Thanks, Wilfried.

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