How can we do this? (been in this forum for less than a year and still a 
newbie)

Can just anyone not from Europe copy Milton's comments and say that they 
represent NCUC's position?

Nicolas

On 1/13/2012 5:42 PM, 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
>>>>>
>>>>