+1 Hakik At 22:24 13-01-2012, Alex Gakuru 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 > >> > > >> > >> > >