+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 >> > >> >> >