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

["Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"]

I join the support
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: pc-ncsg-bounces at ipjustice.org im Auftrag von David Cake
Gesendet: Di 02.04.2013 09:43
An: Robin Gross
Cc: NCSG-Policy Policy
Betreff: Re: [PC-NCSG] perhaps NCSG-PC could endorse comment on RAA from Wendy, Joy and me?


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 <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