+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
>> >
>>
>>
>
|
