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:
[...]
2.5.2. NCSG‑PC Decision making
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 submitthis as an NCUC statement. Can someone who is not in Europe submit this?Thanks and again thanks to Milton for a great statement.KKSent from my iPhoneOn 13 Jan 2012, at 22:30, "Alex Gakuru" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:+1GakuruOn 1/14/12, Nicolas Adam <[log in to unmask]> wrote:+1NicolasOn 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 endorsingit as an NCSG or at least NCUC Statement.---------------------------------------Brenden KuerbisInternet Governance Projecthttp://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 anNCSG or at least NCUC StatementavriOn 13 Jan 2012, at 12:52, Milton L Mueller wrote:Comments of Dr. Milton Mueller on the Preliminary GNSO IssueReport on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement AmendmentsAs a member of the Executive Committee of the NoncommercialStakeholders Group, I am happy to see that the board hasrecognized that these demands for changes to the RAA are importantpolicy issues. As such, they should be handled by the GNSO, notthrough bilateral negotiations between Registrars and ICANN, andnot through unilateral dicta from the GAC and law-enforcementagencies.However, the value of this exercise is diminished by ourknowledge that private negotiations between registrars and ICANNare already underway, dealing with basically the same issues. Thiscreates confusion and raises the danger of a lack ofrepresentation in the evolution of a solution. The issues reportdoes not seem to clarify how these two processes intersect. It isour view that the conclusions of a PDP would override any privateagreements made.The way registrars handle the personal, financial and technicaldata of their customers, and the way they interact with lawenforcement agencies, is a policy issue of the highest order. Itinvolves privacy and freedom of expression issues, due processissues, as well as cyber-security and the effectiveness oflegitimate law enforcement in a globalized environment. The issueis complicated by the fact that law enforcement from governmentsanywhere in the world would be involved, and some of them are notcommitted to due process, individual liberty or privacy. Evenlegitimate governments can engage in illegitimate,extra-territorial assertions of their authority or abuses of dueprocess. LEAs have a long history of demanding access toinformation that makes their jobs easier, and this is a legitimateconcern. However, in democratic countries the demands of lawenforcement have always been constrained by the procedural andsubstantive rights of individuals. ICANN must take this into account.The demands of LEAs to make registrars collect, maintain andvalidate data is reminiscent of what China and South Korea havecalled a "real names" policy, which makes all participation inInternet communication contingent upon giving governmentauthorities sensitive personal identification information and ablanket authority to discontinue service should any wrongdoing besuspected. This not only raises civil liberties issues, but placespotentially enormous cost burdens on registrars.The concept of intermediary responsibility is being activelydebated in a number of Internet policy making forums. (E.g., seethe recent OECD report "The Role of Internet Intermediaries inAdvancing Public Policy Objectives."* A point of consensus inthis controversial topic is that any attempt to load up Internetintermediaries (such as domain name registrars) with too manyancillary responsibilities can stifle the innovation and growth wehave come to associate with the Internet economy. It can alsounfairly distribute the costs and burdens involved. Registrars whoare expected to react instantly to any demand that comes to themfrom anyone claiming to be law enforcement will reduce their riskand liability by acceding to what may be unjust demands andsacrificing the rights of their users.I and many others in the broader ICANN community were troubledby the way in which the Board seems to have been stampeded intoRAA amendments by a few GAC members. It is important to keep inmind that the resolutions or "decisions" made by the GAC'sgovernmental members are not subject to ratification by theirnational legislatures, or to review by their national courts.Thus, the GAC has no legitimacy as a policy making organ and noauthority to demand changes to the RAA. As an Advisory Committee,they can and should make us aware of certain concerns, but theyare in no position to bypass ICANN's own policy developmentprocesses. Furthermore, we continue to be troubled by the failureor refusal of the law enforcement agencies making these demands toliaise with noncommercial users or civil liberties groups.We therefore support the initiation of a legitimate, inclusivepolicy development process that includes all stakeholders,including governments and law enforcement agencies. This kind ofbalanced, multi-stakeholder process is not simply a matter offairness, it is eminently practical when dealing with a globalizedjurisdiction where no single government can claim to be alegitimate representative of all the people and businessesinvolved. Proposals that come from one stakeholder group arecertain to be suboptimal or harmful to other stakeholder groups.ICANN was created to resolve these conflicts of interest in abalanced way that includes all affected groups.*http://www.oecd.org/document/34/0,3746,en_2649_34223_48773090_1_1_1_1,00.htmlMilton L. MuellerProfessor, Syracuse University School of Information StudiesInternet Governance Projecthttp://blog.internetgovernance.org