[PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from Wendy, Joy and me?

[David Cake]

I would be happy for the NCSG-PC to support this statement. 

On 02/04/2013, at 1:14 PM, Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org> wrote:

> Perhaps the NCSG-PC could consider endorsing this statement during the present Reply comment period?
> 
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-proposed-raa-07mar13/msg00016.html
> 
> In negotiating the contracts that form the basis of its governance
> regime, ICANN is performing a public, not private, function. In doing
> so, it has duties to the public, registrants included, to keep our
> interests in mind. As lawyers, technologists, and members of the
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency, we do not believe the latest proposed
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) does so. As such, it does not
> reflect good public policy.
> 
> The heart of ICANN's multi-stakeholder regime is that difficult issues
> are resolved through consensus driven by participation and
> representation of the stakeholders, not by ICANN's Board acting without
> (or against) such guidance. The consensus process carefully insulates
> the Board from many decisions -- its governance is in making sure the
> right procedural steps are followed, not by overturning that process to
> intervene on the substance of contested questions.
> 
> The provision for unilateral amendment of the RAA pulls the Board into
> disputes, subjecting them to lobbying from partisan interests.
> Curtailing their power actually protects their ability to oversee the
> interests of all of the stakeholders.
> 
> Unilateral amendments, even less than bilateral contractual negotiations
> are not the place to set policy for a multi-stakeholder environment. The
> unilateral decision-making in this foundational agreement undermines our
> ability to advocate for multi-stakeholder governance in the ICANN model
> in other fora. The Internet is, by definition, a community of networks.
> To create a single point of unilateral decision-making, particularly
> when no clear case for this has been made, is contrary to this very
> basic and profoundly important architectural feature.
> 
> Additional problems with the most recent changes:
> 
> * They are not evidence-based and therefore irrational and without legal
> basis: no evidence has been provided of a problem necessitating this
> solution; no persuasive rationale has been presented and in any event,
> any such evidence/rationale must be subject to community input.
> 
> * The "Registrants' Rights and Responsibilities" document gives feeble
> rights in exchange for onerous (or unenforceable) responsibilities. It
> should not have been tabled without input from community and especially
> across community constituencies. Registrants rights are a foundational
> aspect of the RFCs which guide the DNS.  To purport to define these
> without community input is not only misguided, but also contrary to the
> very rights the proposal seeks to assert.
> 
> * The proposed accreditation of privacy services and proxy registration
> providers, along with new data collection and retention demands, has
> come under much criticism -- it is vital that human rights implications
> of such changes be taken into account. For example, should a lawyer
> registering domains on behalf of a client, subject to attorney-client
> privilege, be forced to register? must a whistleblower or critic depend
> on mere promises not to disclose identity? Such provisions must be
> subject to the rule of law, due process and take into account
> registrants rights such as to freedom of association and freedom of
> expression. Even a placeholder for this policy is inappropriate at this
> stage.
> 
> ICANN is making policy for the Internet and most of its domain
> registrants -- those seeking a stable location for their online speech
> depend on domain registrations (some, however, use ccTLDs not subject to
> this regime). Registrants depend on registrars to get these names,
> registrars who won't be deterred by the nuisance of an uncomfortable
> exercise of free expression rights.
> 
> We support the Registrars in their opposition to these proposed RAA
> amendments.
> 
> --Wendy Seltzer, Joy Liddicoat, Robin Gross
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130402/1f889f8e/attachment.html>