Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

[Nicolas Adam]

+1

Nicolas

On 1/13/2012 4:39 PM, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
> Thanks Milton for taking the time to write this.
>
> I support this statement personally. I also support the PC endorsing
> it as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Brenden Kuerbis
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org <http://internetgovernance.org/>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org
> <mailto:avri at acm.org>> wrote:
>
>     i support this statement and support the PCs endorsing it as an
>     NCSG or at least NCUC Statement
>
>     avri
>
>     On 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
>     > Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO Issue
>     Report on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > 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.
>     >
>     > *
>     http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.html
>     >
>     > Milton L. Mueller
>     > Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>     > Internet Governance Project
>     > http://blog.internetgovernance.org
>     >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120113/79f69dcb/attachment-0001.html>