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

[Mary.Wong at law.unh.edu]

It would be good to stimulate a community-wide discussion on this, esp. with the Rrs on the same side for the most part, so, yes from me too.


Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Faculty Chair, Global IP Partnerships
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW
Two White Street
Concord, NH 03301
USA
Email: mary.wong at law.unh.edu
Phone: 1-603-513-5143
Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.php


>>> 


From:  
Brenden Kuerbis <bkuerbis at internetgovernance.org> 

To: 
NCSG-Policy <PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org> 

Date:  
4/2/2013 6:07 AM 

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

+1 
On Apr 2, 2013 4:10 AM, "Avri Doria" <avri at ella.com> wrote:



+1

On 2 Apr 2013, at 03:53, Maria Farrell wrote:

> +1.
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 2 April 2013 08:43, David Cake <dave at difference.com.au> wrote:
> 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 ( tel:%2B1-415-553-6261 ) f: +1-415-462-6451 ( tel:%2B1-415-462-6451 )
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> 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


_______________________________________________
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/20130402/4c76397c/attachment-0001.html>