Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

Fri Jan 13 23:42:29 CET 2012

Given the support this statement seems to be receiving I suggest we submit this as an NCUC statement. Can someone who is not in Europe submit this? 

Thanks and again thanks to Milton for a great statement.

KK

Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Jan 2012, at 22:30, "Alex Gakuru" <gakuru at GMAIL.COM> wrote:

> +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
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 