Well it looks like they are still accepting comments.
So if the NCSG-PC can get it together to figure out whether they have rough consensus, they might still be able to send in an endorsement.
avri
On 14 Jan 2012, at 15:49, Dan Krimm wrote:
> Thanks Robin,
>
> So then, I'm anticipating the possibility of NCSG-PC following on to this? Maybe try that first, and only if rough consensus cannot be reached at the SG level NCUC might take it up at the constituency level (does that have any weight by itself within GNSO?)?
>
> Dan
>
>
> --
> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
> At 12:35 PM -0800 1/14/12, Robin Gross wrote:
>> The NCSG Charter is pretty clear about how the NCSG issues policy statements. Basically, statements are approved by a rough consensus of members of the NCSG Policy Committee. Rough consensus does not allow any one member to veto a decision of the group, however.
>>
>> NCSG Charter available at:
>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Final+Approved+Current+NCSG+Charter
>>
>> 2.1.3.
>> NCSG Policy Committee (NCSG-PC):
>> The NCSG Policy Committee serves as a focal point for policy statements issued in the name of the NCSG, organizes policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG, and may provide policy research and guidance to NCSG GNSO Council Representatives. Formation of the NCSG-PC, its composition, and duties within the NCSG are set out in Section 2.5.
>> [...]
>> 2.5 The Policy Committee
>> The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible for:
>> • Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
>> • Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership, including PDP initiatives from the membership;
>> • Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on the GNSO Council;
>> • Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
>> • Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
>> • Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO Council-related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures or Council decisions.
>> • Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
>> [...]
>> 2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
>> • By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded along with the rough consensus position.
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Dan Krimm wrote:
>>
>>> While the deadline seems to have passed for individual comments(?), I
>>> support this as an NCUC statement, or if we can get NCSG consensus then the
>>> full SG. Looks like NCUC-ers are trending in support.
>>>
>>> Alain once suggested something along the lines of "absence of objection
>>> equals (implicit) support by NPOC" but unless there is an official
>>> statement of NPOC leadership to that effect as a status-quo protocol I'd be
>>> uncomfortable just talking the implicit as explicit, here. Don't want to
>>> put words in peoples' mouths that may not be there and have them object
>>> later on. Uncertainty is an obstacle here.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and do
>>> not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> At 10:42 PM +0000 1/13/12, Konstantinos Komaitis wrote:
>>>> 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" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>>
>>>>> Gakuru
>>>>>
>>>>> On 1/14/12, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> 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 <[log in to unmask]
>>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> IP JUSTICE
>> Robin Gross, Executive Director
>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA
>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451
>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]
|
