How can we do this? (been in this forum for less than a year and still a newbie) Can just anyone not from Europe copy Milton's comments and say that they represent NCUC's position? Nicolas On 1/13/2012 5:42 PM, 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 >>>>> >>>>