Comments on the Preliminary GNSO Issue Report on the RAA Amendments

[DeeDee Halleck]

I support this statement. Thank you, Milton.
DeeDee Halleck
Deep Dish TV/Waves of Change
www.deepdishwavesofchange.org

On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 at 12:52 PM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> 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
>



--
http://www.deepdishwavesofchange.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120114/a413d15c/attachment-0001.html>