Re: [ga] On Privacy

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

Dear Chair,

I for one find the issues of Privacy and Freedom of Speech or Freedom of Speech
versus Privacy to be paramount policy concerns.  As I believe do most people.
The internet is most valuable if access is unfettered.  The internet is most
dangerous if it is captured by interests which can deny access in either
decemination or retrieval.

I have been asked by at least two ccTLD managers if the technology is available
for an entire country to have a filter for unwanted material from outside the
country. The answer to this is not one of capability but one of policy.  This is
the GA function.
Whether we are talking about National Security issues or whether or not my son
can access "Uncle Tom's Cabin" on the school provided internet this is an IANA
to ICANN to DoC to internetstakeholders policy issue.  From Italian
schoolchildren to Asian Premiers this issue effects us all and at present there
is only one body made up specifically to give the world advice on the issue and
fortunately, Mr. Chairman you head that body, so be careful what you step in
when you march.

Advice from the pontiffs and talking heads can not resolve this issue the issue
is unresolvable it is a moving living dynamic issue that will require our
constant vigil.  The value that this GA can provide is a bottoms-up somewhat of
a consensus reflection of what us dotcommoner netizens feel and think on the
issue. I know of at least two U.S. Senators and two country ccTLDs nics that
would value greatly any support we can give them in this regard.  I think that
straw polls on specific topics would be helpful to guide us through with
direction.

Sincerely,

"babybows.com" wrote:

> I would like to thank Dave Crocker for reminding me to remain focused on
> ICANN's very narrow scope of activities.  (I had thought that governmental
> intrusion into areas that affected ICANN stakeholders, like the libraries in
> the non-commercial constituency, was a subject open to discussion, in much
> the same way as Department of Commerce preferential treatment of
> Intellectual Property interests to the detriment of other constituencies
> might be a valid topic of discussion, but I will defer to Dave's better
> judgement on what constitutes an ICANN-related matter).   I will be glad to
> rephrase my comment accordingly, and to express my personal interest in
> those privacy matters that are specifically relevant to ICANN:

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html