Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Comments on the Preliminary GNSO
Issue
Thanks Robin,
So then, I'm anticipating the possibility of NCSG-PC following on
to this? Maybe try that first, and only if rough consensus
cannot be reached at the SG level NCUC might take it up at the
constituency level (does that have any weight by itself within
GNSO?)?
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author
alone and do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's
employer.
At 12:35 PM -0800 1/14/12, Robin Gross wrote:
The NCSG Charter is pretty clear about
how the NCSG issues policy statements. Basically, statements are
approved by a rough consensus of members of the NCSG Policy Committee.
Rough consensus does not allow any one member to veto a decision
of the group, however.
NCSG Charter available at:
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Final+Approved+Current+NCSG+Charter
2.1.3.
NCSG Policy Committee
(NCSG-PC):
The NCSG Policy Committee serves as a
focal point for policy statements issued in the name of the NCSG,
organizes policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG, and may provide policy
research and guidance to NCSG GNSO Council Representatives. Formation
of the NCSG-PC, its composition, and duties within the NCSG are set
out in Section 2.5.
[...]
2.5 The Policy Committee
The NCSG Policy Committee is responsible
for:
- Discussion and development of substantive policies and statements
issued in the name of the NCSG. This activity will require
coordination with the membership and the Constituencies;
- Organize policy initiatives on behalf of NCSG membership,
including PDP initiatives from the membership;
- Provide policy research and guidance to NCSG representatives on
the GNSO Council;
- Keep membership informed of GNSO Council activities;
- Organize, appoint where appropriate, and track NCSG participation
in GNSO and other pertinent Working Groups.
- Organization and oversight of NCSG participation in any GNSO
Council-related tasks, whether mandated by Bylaws, Council Procedures
or Council decisions.
- Document methods and procedures used for decision-making. Such
documentation is subject to review by the NCSG-EC.
[...]
2.5.2. NCSG-PC Decision making
- By default NCSG-PC decisions are made by rough consensus of full
NCSG-PC members. Rough consensus means that while all members do not
need to agree and that no single member can veto a decision, all views
must be heard and considered. Any minority views must be recorded
along with the rough consensus position.
[...]
On Jan 14, 2012, at 12:13 PM, Dan Krimm
wrote:
While the deadline seems to have passed
for individual comments(?), I
support this as an NCUC statement, or if we can get NCSG consensus
then the
full SG. Looks like NCUC-ers are trending in support.
Alain once suggested something along the lines of "absence of
objection
equals (implicit) support by NPOC" but unless there is an
official
statement of NPOC leadership to that effect as a status-quo protocol
I'd be
uncomfortable just talking the implicit as explicit, here. Don't
want to
put words in peoples' mouths that may not be there and have them
object
later on. Uncertainty is an obstacle here.
Dan
--
Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone
and do
not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
At 10:42 PM +0000 1/13/12, 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
IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive
Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA
94117 USA
p: +1-415-553-6261 f:
+1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask]