Questions For Focus

1. HOW WILL NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY BE ADDRESSED IN THE GUIDELINES?

  In the 15 July draft, national sovereignty was addressed specifically in the Recognrtion Section and applied to the docurnent as a whole, so that the specific language to express the concept “subject to national law” would not have to be repeated throughout the text of the Principles.

  The September draft inclndes this statement in the Recognition Section at paragraph [15]. (The issue is also discussed in the Secretariat Note following paragragh [63]). Is this an adequate way to address national sovereignty in the Guidelines?

2.: HOW WILL THE INTEGRATION SECTION RESOLVE CONFLICTS AMONG THE PRINCIPLES?

  The Integration Section at paragraphs [51] to [53] of the Septernber draft includes a statement that the Principles do not appear in order of priority. It also states that the Principles should be taken together as a whole. In addition, to address the issue of ranking/precedence. the September draft states that the Principles are intended to be implemented in way which balances the various interests at stake.

  Some delegations have noted that the concept of ranking/precedence is problematic for instance, to the extent that “Voluntary Choice”, “Demand-Driven”, and “Lawfull Acccss” Principles are incompatible, saying only that the Principles should be taken as a whole. as was done in the 15 July draft is insufficient. It is argued that, since national governments can decide for themselves the priority to give the Principles, there is no need to prioritise the Principles in these Guidelines. The opposing argurnent is that the Guidelines must suggest a resolution to the conflicts among the Pnnciples in order to give coherent advice to national governments on the implementation of the Guidelines so that intemationallv compatible policies are developed.

  One way to address this conflict is to include in the Integration Section a resolution of the conflicts among the Principles (e.g., the Principles of “Voluntary Choice” and “Demand-Driven Development” are the key elements of intemational cryptography policv. but they are restricted by the needs for Lawfull Access )

  Is the language included in the Integration Section of the September draft adequate to address these concerns ?