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 >>>> >>> >>> >>