<!doctype html public "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<html><head><style type="text/css"><!--
blockquote, dl, ul, ol, li { padding-top: 0 ; padding-bottom: 0 }
--></style><title>Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO
Issue</title></head><body>
<div>Thanks Robin,</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>So then, I'm anticipating the possibility of NCSG-PC following on
to this? Maybe try that first, and only if rough consensus
cannot be reached at the SG level NCUC might take it up at the
constituency level (does that have any weight by itself within
GNSO?)?</div>
<div><br></div>
<div>Dan</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>--</div>
<div>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's
employer.</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div>At 12:35 PM -0800 1/14/12, Robin Gross wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The NCSG Charter is pretty clear about
how the NCSG issues policy statements. Basically, statements are
approved by a rough consensus of members of the NCSG Policy Committee.
Rough consensus does not allow any one member to veto a decision
of the group, however.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>NCSG Charter available at:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> <a
href=
"https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Final+Approved+Current+NCSG+Charter"><span
></span
>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Final+Approved+C<span
></span>urrent+NCSG+Charter</a></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>2.1.3.</b><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><i><b>NCSG Policy Committee
(NCSG-PC):</b></i><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The NCSG Policy Committee serves as a
focal point for policy statements issued in the name of the NCSG,
organizes policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG, and may provide policy
research and guidance to NCSG GNSO Council Representatives. Formation
of the NCSG-PC, its composition, and duties within the NCSG are set
out in Section 2.5.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>[...]<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>2.5 The Policy Committee</b><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible
for:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<ul>
<li>Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements
issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require
coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
<li>Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership,
including PDP initiatives from the membership;
<li>Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on
the GNSO Council;
<li>Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
<li>Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation
in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
<li>Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO
Council-related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures
or Council decisions.
<li>Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such
documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>[...]</b><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><b>2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making</b><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>
<ul>
<li>By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full
NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not
need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views
must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded
along with the rough consensus position.</ul>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>[...]</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Dan Krimm
wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>While the deadline seems to have passed
for individual comments(?), I<br>
support this as an NCUC statement, or if we can get NCSG consensus
then the<br>
full SG. Looks like NCUC-ers are trending in support.<br>
<br>
Alain once suggested something along the lines of "absence of
objection<br>
equals (implicit) support by NPOC" but unless there is an
official<br>
statement of NPOC leadership to that effect as a status-quo protocol
I'd be<br>
uncomfortable just talking the implicit as explicit, here. Don't
want to<br>
put words in peoples' mouths that may not be there and have them
object<br>
later on. Uncertainty is an obstacle here.<br>
<br>
Dan<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone
and do<br>
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
At 10:42 PM +0000 1/13/12, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Given the support this statement seems to
be receiving I suggest we submit<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>this as an NCUC statement. Can someone
who is not in Europe submit this?<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Thanks and again thanks to Milton for a
great statement.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>KK<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Sent from my iPhone<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 13 Jan 2012, at 22:30, "Alex
Gakuru" <<a
href="mailto:gakuru@GMAIL.COM">gakuru@GMAIL.COM</a>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>+1<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Gakuru<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 1/14/12, Nicolas Adam <<a
href="mailto:nickolas.adam@gmail.com">nickolas.adam@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>+1<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Nicolas<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On 1/13/2012 4:39 PM, Brenden Kuerbis
wrote:</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Thanks Milton for taking the time to
write this.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I support this statement personally. I
also support the PC endorsing<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>it as an NCSG or at least NCUC
Statement.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite>---------------------------------------<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Brenden Kuerbis<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Internet Governance Project<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="http://internetgovernance.org">http://internetgovernance.org</a>
<<a
href="http://internetgovernance.org/">http://internetgovernance.org/</a
>><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Avri
Doria <<a href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><<a
href="mailto:avri@acm.org">mailto:avri@acm.org</a>>> wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> i support this statement and
support the PCs endorsing it as an<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> NCSG or at least NCUC
Statement<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> avri<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52,
Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the
Preliminary GNSO Issue<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> Report on the Registrar
Accreditation Agreement Amendments<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>As a member of the Executive Committee of
the Noncommercial<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> Stakeholders Group, I am
happy to see that the board has<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> recognized that these demands
for changes to the RAA are important<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> policy issues. As such, they
should be handled by the GNSO, not<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> through bilateral
negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, and<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> not through unilateral dicta
from the GAC and law-enforcement<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> agencies.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>However, the value of this exercise is
diminished by our<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> knowledge that private
negotiations between registrars and ICANN<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> are already underway, dealing
with basically the same issues. This<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> creates confusion and raises
the danger of a lack of<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> representation in the
evolution of a solution. The issues report<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> does not seem to clarify how
these two processes intersect. It is<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> our view that the conclusions
of a PDP would override any private<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> agreements made.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The way registrars handle the personal,
financial and technical<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> data of their customers, and
the way they interact with law<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> enforcement agencies, is a
policy issue of the highest order. It<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> involves privacy and freedom
of expression issues, due process<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> issues, as well as
cyber-security and the effectiveness of<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> legitimate law enforcement in
a globalized environment. The issue<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> is complicated by the fact
that law enforcement from governments<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> anywhere in the world would
be involved, and some of them are not<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> committed to due process,
individual liberty or privacy. Even<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> legitimate governments can
engage in illegitimate,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> extra-territorial assertions
of their authority or abuses of due<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> process. LEAs have a long
history of demanding access to<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> information that makes their
jobs easier, and this is a legitimate<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> concern. However, in
democratic countries the demands of law<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> enforcement have always been
constrained by the procedural and<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> substantive rights of
individuals. ICANN must take this into account.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The demands of LEAs to make registrars
collect, maintain and<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> validate data is reminiscent
of what China and South Korea have<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> called a "real names"
policy, which makes all participation in<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> Internet communication
contingent upon giving government<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> authorities sensitive
personal identification information and a<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> blanket authority to
discontinue service should any wrongdoing be<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> suspected. This not only
raises civil liberties issues, but places<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> potentially enormous cost
burdens on registrars.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>The concept of intermediary
responsibility is being actively<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> debated in a number of
Internet policy making forums. (E.g., see<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> the recent OECD report
"The Role of Internet Intermediaries in<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> Advancing Public Policy
Objectives."* A point of consensus in<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> this controversial topic is
that any attempt to load up Internet<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> intermediaries (such as
domain name registrars) with too many<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> ancillary responsibilities
can stifle the innovation and growth we<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> have come to associate with
the Internet economy. It can also<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> unfairly distribute the costs
and burdens involved. Registrars who<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> are expected to react
instantly to any demand that comes to them<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> from anyone claiming to be
law enforcement will reduce their risk<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> and liability by acceding to
what may be unjust demands and<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> sacrificing the rights of
their users.</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>I and many others in the broader ICANN
community were troubled<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> by the way in which the Board
seems to have been stampeded into<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> RAA amendments by a few GAC
members. It is important to keep in<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> mind that the resolutions or
"decisions" made by the GAC's<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> governmental members are not
subject to ratification by their<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> national legislatures, or to
review by their national courts.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> Thus, the GAC has no
legitimacy as a policy making organ and no<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> authority to demand changes
to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> they can and should make us
aware of certain concerns, but they<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> are in no position to bypass
ICANN's own policy development<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> processes. Furthermore, we
continue to be troubled by the failure<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> or refusal of the law
enforcement agencies making these demands to<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> liaise with noncommercial
users or civil liberties groups.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>We therefore support the initiation of a
legitimate, inclusive<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> policy development process
that includes all stakeholders,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> including governments and law
enforcement agencies. This kind of<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> balanced, multi-stakeholder
process is not simply a matter of<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> fairness, it is eminently
practical when dealing with a globalized<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> jurisdiction where no single
government can claim to be a<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> legitimate representative of
all the people and businesses<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> involved. Proposals that come
from one stakeholder group are<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> certain to be suboptimal or
harmful to other stakeholder groups.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> ICANN was created to resolve
these conflicts of interest in a<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite> balanced way that includes
all affected groups.<br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>*<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href=
"http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html"
>http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_<span
></span>1,00.html</a><br>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Milton L. Mueller<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Professor, Syracuse University School of
Information Studies<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Internet Governance Project<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><a
href="http://blog.internetgovernance.org"
>http://blog.internetgovernance.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite><br></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>IP JUSTICE</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>Robin Gross, Executive
Director</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA
94117 USA</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>p: +1-415-553-6261 f:
+1-415-462-6451</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite" cite>w: <a
href="http://www.ipjustice.org">http://www.ipjustice.org</a
> e: <a
href="mailto:robin@ipjustice.org">robin@ipjustice.org</a></blockquote>
<div><br></div>
</body>
</html>