Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments'

[Tapani Tarvainen]

+1

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 04:39:27PM -0500, Brenden Kuerbis (bkuerbis at INTERNETGOVERNANCE.ORG) 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
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM, Avri Doria <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
> > >
> >
> >

--
Tapani Tarvainen