<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
+1<br>
<br>
Nicolas<br>
<br>
On 1/13/2012 4:39 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CANwsP3D_pC049JJc=hq6B39o31QY_Dar+X8324O-S8qb8ko2hg@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Thanks Milton for taking the time to write this.<br>
<br>
I support this statement personally. I also support the PC
endorsing it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement. <br>
<br>
<br>
---------------------------------------<br>
Brenden Kuerbis<br>
Internet Governance Project<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://internetgovernance.org/"
target="_blank">http://internetgovernance.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Avri
Doria <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as
an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
avri<br>
</font></span>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5"><br>
On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
<br>
> Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary
GNSO Issue Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement
Amendments<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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
this into account.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
> * <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html"
target="_blank">http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html</a><br>
><br>
> Milton L. Mueller<br>
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information
Studies<br>
> Internet Governance Project<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org"
target="_blank">http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a><br>
><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>