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 <[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 > > > >