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

Thu Apr 4 01:56:54 EEST 2013

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

thanks Rudi - I would just point out that there are some ccTLDs that
have a higher bar of service and standards than some registrars and
registries and for that (and other) reasons they would actively resist
having the RAA applied to them. perhaps we could ask them about this
at one of our joint ccNSO sessions...
Joy

On 2/04/2013 9:22 p.m., Rudi Vansnick wrote:
> I agree too ...
> 
> And as said during last conf call, the RAA should have a broader
> range, also affecting the registries in the ccTLD world. Many
> problems are due to the fact the RAA is not applicable on "ccTLD -
> registrars".
> 
> Rudi Vansnick
> 
> Op 2-apr-2013, om 07:14 heeft Robin Gross het volgende geschreven:
> 
>> 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 <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 
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRXLO2AAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqaKEIALhFsIWdX/ArA9NuK3Dxt81+
4EgAmYSDKGBNmS5J+fRXuYMH+0jvJ6FjpQNMg3C56XMCWZCto2JAaB2B4PI5Zl/M
cAY1ud+5Xdb+8z7JPTRO1U3GeC9gTMeM1kYlo6b0yIDumcuSQekDMp0jHJakPfNd
uubmW1Cq/3jaAObgjlDnPaD5U5CNgRsRgB46fldtnQN2OSfWjyE42OHaUvRp4bOn
jajng/Ptb7XjtWSRybDZCfg6MulEezZvd28xP1zL8yo4K9tQocEdczIn5DfGgz3s
rv16Vu9vbXcTyYPJik4nYqLinoM95+wKImhzm8dwHxQ8iGOJgxlh62VD0Z4pRUA=
=prxY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----