<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello everyone,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I adamantly believe that ICANN should not be in the business of balancing rights or interests, particularly those as complex as privacy vs security. Accepting that burden necessarily results in the privatization of justice, which further shifts procedural advantages to powerful players. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">While substantive law and court procedures aren’t perfect, most are bound to consider the inalienable rights and liberties of the individual in their proceedings, and moreover provide avenues for recourse and escalation should a party disagree with the result. Regardless of any complex attempts to mimic bonafide due process, one-size-fits-all models of adjudication simply can’t scale without putting individuals and their rights at a (further) disadvantage. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">When powerful actors — be they multinational corporations, special interest industries, law enforcement or others — infringe on human rights, it is the duty of the State to intervene. Privatized justice has no such social contract.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">That being said, we can’t deny the human rights impacts of ICANN policies, even within its limited technical mandate. For that reason, insofar as balancing human rights is necessary for ICANN to carry out its mission of coordinating the DNS, material evidence of human rights considerations should form part of the justification for the finalized policy or course of action. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Great thread!</div><div class="">Collin </div><div class=""><div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">--</div>Collin Kurre<br class=""><div class="">ARTICLE 19</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br class=""><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 5, 2018, at 11:45 AM, Amr Elsadr <<a href="mailto:aelsadr@icannpolicy.ninja" class="">aelsadr@ICANNPOLICY.NINJA</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I don’t believe that combating cybercrime is within the scope of ICANN’s mandate, nor do I believe it should be. There are responsible authorities out there who are meant to do this. ICANN is a private-sector not-for-profit corp. meant to be coordinating the Internet’s unique identifiers, not hunting down cybercriminals.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are some who interpret ICANN’s mission of ensuring a stable, secure and reliable DNS to include issues such as cybercrime, however, I find this to be an expansive interpretation.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I’m not saying cybercrime is a good thing that we don’t need to worry about. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t encourage ICANN to play the role of cyber-cops. I generally agree with the approach briefly described by Ayden below. There may be times when LEAs may need access to redacted gTLD registration data. Under the right circumstances, this access may be allowed in order to facilitate investigations. As Ayden said, this requires accountability of the actors involved, and needs to be specifically proportionate to their needs.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Amr</div><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 5, 2018, at 12:02 PM, Ade Bo <<a href="mailto:adebodea@GMAIL.COM" class="">adebodea@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" class=""><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello Ayden, <div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I totally agree on the balance necessary i am just wondering how we could help improve or what could we suggest to be done better or in a different manner so we can tackle somehow the civil liberties and at the same time think of the cybercrime issue that is on the rise.</div><div class="">I totally agree with your statement Ayden, although just because one cop or maybe a few are doing or have done unspeakable things it does not mean that we can do justice without them. Its sad to see such cases but i am sure great people are out there fighting crime so what would be the best solution?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind Regards </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Adela<br class=""><div class=""> <br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 5 Oct 2018, at 10:59, Ayden Férdeline <<a href="mailto:icann@ferdeline.com" class="">icann@ferdeline.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hi there,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We do need to strike the right balance between privacy and security; it doesn’t have to be an either/or situation. We can protect civil liberties while also addressing cybercrime that may exist in the Domain Name System. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Indeed, when we have talked about the future availability of domain name registration data, the NCSG has acknowledged that law enforcement may have a need to access these records, because they do have a need to tackle cybercrime. But they should do so in a proportionate and accountable manner.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Just yesterday we learned of a <a href="https://www.zdnet.com/article/french-police-officer-caught-selling-confidential-police-data-on-the-dark-web/" class="">French police officer</a> who was selling confidential police data on the dark web. This is not a common occurrence, but it goes to show why we cannot blindly trust law enforcement to do ‘the right thing’ and to use their access for ‘good’ purposes.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">We want people to have the freedom to use the DNS to express their thoughts and to assemble freely, and while some people might abuse it from time to time, that alone is not reason enough to allow governments or others to trample over our civil and personal liberties. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Kind regards,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Ayden</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 5 Oct 2018, at 09:38, Ade Bo <<a href="mailto:adebodea@gmail.com" class="">adebodea@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Hello Johan, <br class=""><br class="">I guess you might be right in some why, but lets just say it’s not just about the rights of the good people registering genuine businesses and doing good. Lets just say people register domains not just for the good but also for harming others, like children.<br class="">In that case till now even if they were not the ones that were supposed to take care of these issues they tried to help.<br class="">If we think that ICANN changed and switched so have businesses, criminals and other things together with the technological evolution. Furthermore if we think that if ICANN would not have hands on the domain name registration others will not either we are really far from the truth. <br class=""><br class="">Sometimes we want to do good and be free of surveil but we also do harm for those who have no protection from the criminals. This brings me to the see that there is a huge gap between what we want and what people are capable of doing. We want total freedom but are we ready to fight the crime online as well?<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">On 5 Oct 2018, at 09:22, Johan Helsingius <<a href="mailto:julf@JULF.COM" class="">julf@JULF.COM</a>> wrote:<br class=""><br class="">On 05-10-18 00:46, Kathy Kleiman wrote:<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I hope I'm not too late too. /I would like to know why ICANN has<br class="">decided to re-make itself from being a manager and custodian of the<br class="">Internet infrastructure to being the data miner of the domain name<br class="">registration data of 140+ million gTLD domain name registrants? When and<br class="">why did our priorities and goals so radically change and how can we<br class="">change them back?/<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I guess it happened at the same time enforcement of intellectual<br class="">property become one of the core purposes of ICANN.<br class=""><br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Julf<br class=""></blockquote></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>