[council] FW: NCUC statement on Australia GAC rep position regarding WHOIS
- To: <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] FW: NCUC statement on Australia GAC rep position regarding WHOIS
- From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 21:49:38 +1000
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: AcZm54W/6DhqgRTqS2Cl5oOWPYcvIwDCRL/w
- Thread-topic: NCUC statement on Australia GAC rep position regarding WHOIS
To: Bruce Tonkin, Chair of the GNSO Council
From: Carlos A. Afonso, Chair, NCUC
cc: Glen de Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat
Regarding Australia's contribution to GNSO on the Whois issues recently
submitted by the GAC representative Ashley Cross, the NCUC would like that the
statement below be conveyed to him as an official inquiry from NCUC and copied
to GNSO Council, as well as to all GAC members.
Carlos A. Afonso
====== beginning of NCUC statement =====
NCUC statement on Australia's contribution to GNSO on the Whois issues
(submitted to GNSO in April, 2006, by the GAC representative Ashley Cross)
1. We would like to recall the Australian national privacy principles (at
http://www.privacy.gov.au/publications/npps01.html), which, under the heading
"Use and disclosure", state: "An organisation must not use or disclose personal
information about an individual for a purpose (the secondary purpose) other
than the primary purpose of collection unless:
"(f) the organisation has reason to suspect that unlawful activity has been, is
being or may be engaged in, and uses or discloses the personal information as a
necessary part of its investigation of the matter or in reporting its concerns
to relevant persons or authorities; or
(g) the use or disclosure is required or authorised by or under law; or
(h) the organisation reasonably believes that the use or disclosure is
reasonably necessary for one or more of the following by or on behalf of an
(i) the prevention, detection, investigation, prosecution or punishment of
criminal offences, breaches of a law imposing a penalty or sanction or breaches
of a prescribed law;
(ii) the enforcement of laws relating to the confiscation of the proceeds of
(iii) the protection of the public revenue;
(iv) the prevention, detection, investigation or remedying of seriously
improper conduct or prescribed conduct;
(v) the preparation for, or conduct of, proceedings before any court or
tribunal, or implementation of the orders of a court or tribunal."
The Australian national privacy principles also state: "If an organisation uses
or discloses personal information under paragraph (h), it must make a written
note of the use or disclosure."
So, at least in Australia, law enforcement activities are already covered under
the privacy laws. What is not envisaged in the privacy laws is that the method
to provide data to law enforcement should be via public publication.
There is literally no practical way to restrict the subsequent "use" of data
once it is published in the public.
In light of the above, is the Australia GAC representative contradicting
Australia's national policy or suggesting that its laws be changed?
2. Why is the Australia GAC representative supporting Formulation 2, when ".au"
has a Whois policy and purpose that corresponds more closely to Formulation 1
than Formulation 2?
3. If GAC itself has not come to a unified position on Formulation 1 versus
Formulation 2 -- we are aware of governments who support Formulation 1 or who
take a more pro-privacy position --, what relevance does the position of the
Australia GAC representative have?
April 23rd, 2006
==== end of NCUC statement =====
Carlos A. Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br
* Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD Linux *
* orientada a projetos de inclusão digital *
* com software livre e de código aberto, *
* mantida pela Rits em colaboração com o *
* Coletivo Digital. *
* Saiba mais: http://www.sacix.org.br *