[PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

Sun Jan 15 18:21:15 EET 2012

As I expressed previously on the NCSG Discuss list, +1

---------------------------------------
Brenden Kuerbis
Internet Governance Project
http://internetgovernance.org

On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Konstantinos Komaitis <
k.komaitis at strath.ac.uk> wrote:

> +1
>
> KK
>
> From: William Drake <william.drake at uzh.ch<mailto:william.drake at uzh.ch>>
> Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:01:10 +0000
> To: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> Cc: "pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>" <
> pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org<mailto:pc-ncsg at ipjustice.org>>
> Subject: Re: [PC-NCSG] [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO
> Issue Report on the RAA Amendments
>
> So I guess we need to hear an aye from each PC member?here's mine?.
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 9:40 PM, Robin Gross wrote:
>
> Yes, I also support this clear statement and request the NCSG-PC to
> consider endorsing the statement.
> Thanks,
> Robin
> On Jan 13, 2012, at 12:08 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an NCSG or at
> least NCUC Statement
> avri
> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
> As a member of the Executive Committee of the Noncommercial Stakeholders
> Group, I am happy to see that the board has recognized that these demands
> for changes to the RAA are important policy issues. As such, they should be
> handled by the GNSO, not through bilateral negotiations between Registrars
> and ICANN, and not through unilateral dicta from the GAC and
> law-enforcement agencies.
> However, the value of this exercise is diminished by our knowledge that
> private negotiations between registrars and ICANN are already underway,
> dealing with basically the same issues. This creates confusion and raises
> the danger of a lack of representation in the evolution of a solution. The
> issues report does not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect.
> It is our view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any private
> agreements made.
> The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technical data of
> their customers, and the way they interact with law enforcement agencies,
> is a policy issue of the highest order. It involves privacy and freedom of
> expression issues, due process issues, as well as cyber-security and the
> effectiveness of legitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment.
> The issue is complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governments
> anywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are not committed
> to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Even legitimate governments
> can engage in illegitimate, extra-territorial assertions of their authority
> or abuses of due process. LEAs have a long history of demanding access to
> information that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimate concern.
> However, in democratic countries the demands of law enforcement have always
> been constrained by the procedural and substantive rights of individuals.
> ICANN must take t!
> his into account.
> The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain and validate data
> is reminiscent of what China and South Korea have called a "real names"
> policy, which makes all participation in Internet communication contingent
> upon giving government authorities sensitive personal identification
> information and a blanket authority to discontinue service should any
> wrongdoing be suspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but
> places potentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.
> The concept of intermediary responsibility is being actively debated in a
> number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see the recent OECD report
> "The Role of Internet Intermediaries in Advancing Public Policy
> Objectives."*  A point of consensus in this controversial topic is that any
> attempt to load up Internet intermediaries (such as domain name registrars)
> with too many ancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and
> growth we have come to associate with the Internet economy. It can also
> unfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars who are
> expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to them from anyone
> claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their risk and liability by
> acceding to what may be unjust demands and sacrificing the rights of their
> users.
> I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubled by the way
> in which the Board seems to have been stampeded into RAA amendments by a
> few GAC members. It is important to keep in mind that the resolutions or
> "decisions" made by the GAC's governmental members are not subject to
> ratification by their national legislatures, or to review by their national
> courts. Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and no
> authority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee, they can
> and should make us aware of certain concerns, but they are in no position
> to bypass ICANN's own policy development processes. Furthermore, we
> continue to be troubled by the failure or refusal of the law enforcement
> agencies making these demands to liaise with noncommercial users or civil
> liberties groups.
> We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusive policy
> development process that includes all stakeholders, including governments
> and law enforcement agencies. This kind of balanced, multi-stakeholder
> process is not simply a matter of fairness, it is eminently practical when
> dealing with a globalized jurisdiction where no single government can claim
> to be a legitimate representative of all the people and businesses
> involved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group are certain to be
> suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups. ICANN was created to
> resolve these conflicts of interest in a balanced way that includes all
> affected groups.
> *
> http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
> Milton L. Mueller
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> Internet Governance Project
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org<mailto:
> robin at ipjustice.org>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org<mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20120115/c9719ef0/attachment.html>