Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

[Hakikur Rahman]

+1

Hakik

At 22:24 13-01-2012, Alex Gakuru 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
> >>     >
> >>
> >>
> >