+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 > > > >