Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

[Alex Gakuru]

+1

Gakuru

On 1/14/12, Nicolas Adam <nickolas.adam at gmail.com> wrote:
> +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
>>     >
>>
>>
>