nexa

By thread

nexa@server-nexa.polito.it

October 2016

31 participants
107 messages

Re: [nexa] "Offuscamento": Manuale a difesa della privacy e della protesta

by A Dicorinto

bella notizia, Grazie e in bocca al lupo Il giorno 3 ottobre 2016 16:40, bernardo parrella < bernardo.parrella(a)gmail.com> ha scritto: > ...veloce segnalazione per un libro utile e tempestivo, appena pubblicato > da Stampa Alternativa (con mia traduzione): > > Finn Brunton, Helen Nissenbaum > OFFUSCAMENTO. Manuale a difesa della privacy e della protesta > > http://stampalternativa.it/libri/978-88-6222-533-5/finn-brun > ton-helen/offuscamento.html > > qui la prefazione (di Antonio Sgobba, giornalista Rai): > http://www.stampalternativa.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/ > 2016/09/intro-sgobba.pdf > > stralci e anticipazioni su Wired.it: http://www.wired.it/play/libri > /2016/09/30/privacy-offuscamento/ > _______________________________________________ > nexa mailing list > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > https://server-nexa.polito.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nexa > -- Arturo Di Corinto www.dicorinto.it ---------------------------------> AVVERTENZE AI SENSI DEL D.Lgs. 196/2003 Le informazioni contenute in questo messaggio di posta elettronica e/o nel/i file/s allegato/i sono da considerarsi strettamente riservate. Il loro utilizzo è consentito esclusivamente al destinatario del messaggio, per le finalità indicate nel messaggio stesso. Qualora riceviate questo messaggio senza esserne il destinatario, Vi preghiamo cortesemente di darcene notizia via e-mail e di procedere alla distruzione del messaggio stesso, cancellandolo dal Vostro sistema. Conservare il messaggio stesso, divulgarlo anche in parte, distribuirlo ad altri soggetti, copiarlo, od utilizzarlo per finalità diverse, costituisce comportamento contrario ai principi dettati dal D.Lgs. 196/2003

Oct. 3, 2016

"Offuscamento": Manuale a difesa della privacy e della protesta

by bernardo parrella

...veloce segnalazione per un libro utile e tempestivo, appena pubblicato da Stampa Alternativa (con mia traduzione): Finn Brunton, Helen Nissenbaum OFFUSCAMENTO. Manuale a difesa della privacy e della protesta http://stampalternativa.it/libri/978-88-6222-533-5/finn-brunton-helen/offus… qui la prefazione (di Antonio Sgobba, giornalista Rai): http://www.stampalternativa.it/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/intro-s… stralci e anticipazioni su Wired.it: http://www.wired.it/play/libri/2016/09/30/privacy-offuscamento/

Oct. 3, 2016

WEF (Vetrò) "Italy is giving itself a digital makeover. Here’s how"

by Francesco Ruggiero

30.09.2016Italy is giving itself a digital makeover: here's howAntonio Vetrò, Director of Research, Nexa Center for Internet and Society Data from the *Global Information Technology Report 2016* <http://reports.weforum.org/global-information-technology-report-2016/> shows that Italy is one of the countries that improved the most <http://reports.weforum.org/global-information-technology-report-2016/econom…>during the last year its ability to leverage information and communication technologies to improve its competitiveness and the well-being of its population. The country has gained 10 notches and reached the 45th position in the Networked Readiness Index (NRI), an aggregate index that assesses the countries’ overall environment for innovation and ICTs (information and communication technologies). It also measures their readiness for ICT uptake; the level of usage by companies, society and the private sector; and overall level of impact on society and the economy. While Italy’s improvement reflects efforts by the national government to improve regulation and digital infrastructure, the country’s performance is not uniform across the areas of networked readiness. Some areas, for instance, show an increase in the government’s use of digital technology, while others show signs of deterioration. It seems the political and regulatory environment – for which Italy ranks 96th – still represents one of the country’s Achilles heels. [...] Continua qui: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/09/italy-global- information-technology-report-2016

Oct. 3, 2016

UK, trial di social benefit usando bitcoin - preoccupazioni sui dati sensibili che sono rivelati e la possibilità teoria di blocco della spesa su certi settori - BBC News

by Elia Gabriele

Trial di 6 mesi del Dept of Work and Pension; l’archivio distribuito però sarà pubblico (come nella natura di bitcoin) e non modificabile anche se ci fossero dati inesatti, paradossalmente, Ø One recently departed member of the Government Digital Service told me of his amazement that this trial was being allowed to go ahead. His most serious concern was about the privacy implications of putting highly sensitive personal data on a shared ledger "which, by technical design, can never be changed or deleted even if it's inaccurate". Un’altra considerazione è che con tecnologie a la blockchain sarebbe facile bloccare la possibilità di spendere quanto erogato solo verso certe transazioni Ø He sees the possibility that in the future the government could then use the technology to force people to spend benefits on certain things - to make sure, for instance that pensioners spent their winter fuel allowance on their energy bills. Saluti Gabriele http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36785872 The government has quietly launched a bold experiment using the technology behind the virtual currency Bitcoin - and, if anybody notices, it could prove hugely controversial. That is because the trial involves the payment of benefits and could conceivably involve very sensitive data being made public - or at least that's the concern of some critics. There is a huge amount of excitement around now about the Blockchain, with endless academic studies and a good deal of investment reinforcing the belief that a permanent ever-expanding and tamper-proof online ledger of transactions must have all sorts of wider applications. Earlier this year the government's chief scientific advisor Mark Walport wrote a report on blockchain - or distributed ledger technology<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32781244> - which was enthusiastic about its potential to produce "disruptive innovations that could transform the delivery of public and private services and enhance productivity through a wide range of applications." He recommended that the government should back trials of the technology while also looking carefully at the security and privacy implications of using it. Now, the first real trial is underway, revealed without any fanfare by the welfare minister Lord Freud at a conference last week. [Lord Freud]Image copyright Getty Images Image caption Lord Freud announced the experiment last week The Department of Work and Pensions tell me it began in May, will run for up to six months, and is designed to look at how the technology might help benefit claimants manage their money. Up to 24 welfare claimants will use an app provided by a company called Govcoin to track their spending. But this news sounded alarm bells amongst some of those who have been involved in framing the government's technology policies. Their concern is that the payment of benefits is not the right place to start this journey of blockchain exploration. One recently departed member of the Government Digital Service told me of his amazement that this trial was being allowed to go ahead. His most serious concern was about the privacy implications of putting highly sensitive personal data on a shared ledger "which, by technical design, can never be changed or deleted even if it's inaccurate". [Govcoin]Image copyright Govcoin Image caption The spending-tracking app is being created by the London-based start-up Govcoin He also has a theory that the trial - though billed as a way for claimants to manage their money better - could also be "a potentially efficient way for DWP to restrict, audit and control exactly what each benefits payment is actually spent on, without the government being perceived as a big brother". He sees the possibility that in the future the government could then use the technology to force people to spend benefits on certain things - to make sure, for instance that pensioners spent their winter fuel allowance on their energy bills. "[That would be a] highly political idea. To hide it behind hyped up blockchain technobabble is not on," he said. It seems there is also concern in Whitehall about the process by which this trial came to be approved. The chief scientific advisor had wanted a Cabinet Office committee to vet all the various blockchain ideas coming out of different government departments. It seems that committee has yet to be formed, but another insider has indicated to me that if it had been, the DWP trial would have been quite far down the list for approval. I put these criticisms to the Department for Work and Pensions. [App]Image copyright Thinkstock Image caption The government says it will not use the app to keep a record of who spent what I was told that any data involved in the trial would be handled by the private company running it and personal information would be removed before it reached the department. "There are no plans to replace any DWP payment systems," a spokesman said. "This trial is designed to explore how distributed ledger technology could help support financial inclusion and offer budgeting help, and it does not place any restrictions or limits on what a claimant can spend their welfare payments on, nor tracks how they spend them." There is plenty of enthusiasm for the potential of blockchain to deliver improvements to public services - albeit some time in the quite distant future. But the worry now is that if the first trials go down the wrong path, then public trust in the technology could be irredeemably damaged. Questo messaggio e i suoi allegati sono indirizzati esclusivamente alle persone indicate. La diffusione, copia o qualsiasi altra azione derivante dalla conoscenza di queste informazioni sono rigorosamente vietate. Qualora abbiate ricevuto questo documento per errore siete cortesemente pregati di darne immediata comunicazione al mittente e di provvedere alla sua distruzione, Grazie. This e-mail and any attachments is confidential and may contain privileged information intended for the addressee(s) only. Dissemination, copying, printing or use by anybody else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and any attachments and advise the sender by return e-mail, Thanks. [rispetta l'ambiente]Rispetta l'ambiente. Non stampare questa mail se non è necessario.

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

by Andrea Beccalli

Ciao Andrea, la fine del contratto e’ una tappa importante di un processo di evoluzione di ICANN, rende indipendenti le funzioni IANA del DNS dalla supervisione di un solo paese. La questione della giurisdizione di ICANN, assieme ad altri come il ruolo dei diritti umani nella mission di ICANN, e’ uno dei temi di discussione del gruppo di lavoro su ICANN Accountability (Work Stream 2<https://www.icann.org/news/blog/launching-work-stream-2-in-helsinki#_ftn1>). La discussione e’ aperta a tutti, chi voglia partecipare o osservare I lavori può farlo mandando una email a acct-staff(a)icann.org. Credo che questi sarebbero temi di discussione interessanti per l’IGF Italia, anche considerando il ruolo che gli stakeholder europei stanno avendo in questo processo (I co-chairs del Working Group su accountability sono un tedesco e un francese) e la tappa importante del prossimo meeting di ICANN in Europa, (ICANN58 Copenhagen, 11-16 Marzo). Per partecipare alla lista credo basti mandare un email a 2016(a)igf-italia.it<mailto:2016@igf-italia.it> chiedendo di essere aggiunti, fammi sapere se riesci a iscriverti. A presto, Andrea From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com<mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com>> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it<mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it>> Date: Sunday 2 October 2016 17:40 To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it<mailto:demartin@polito.it>>, Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it<mailto:2016@igf-italia.it>> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto Caro Andrea, la fine del contratto tra ICANN e il governo statunitense, per quanto importante come passaggio, non muove di una virgola la centralità che il sistema giuridico (e, sospetto, politico) statunitense continuerà ad esercitare su ICANN, finché quest'ultimo (ultima?) continuerà ad essere una not-for-profit con sede legale a Marina del Rey, California. Bisogna avere ben chiari i termini del problema se lo si vuole risolvere sul lungo periodo. :) P.S.: credo che le mie mail non arrivino sulla lista IGF-Italia, poiché non vi sono iscritto. A presto, Andrea On Sunday, October 2, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>> wrote: Ciao Andrea, si il caso di Galveston e’ anche secondo me diverso, piu’ preoccupante perché usato come ricorso politico alla "11th hour" e se ce ne fosse stato bisogno, un esempio in più della necessita di terminare I contratto IANA, per rendere indipendente in DNS. A presto, Andrea From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com');>> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it');>> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 23:43 To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demartin(a)polito.it');>>, Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it');>>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','2016(a)igf-italia.it');>> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto Caro Andrea, Grazie per l'articolo. Interessante, anche se francamente un po' sbilanciato - la Corte di Giustizia dell'UE non è certo l'unica a pronunciarsi su queste materie, per riprendere l'esempio di Uber negli Stati Uniti ci sono state molte pronunce e cause in corso sulla natura e gli obblighi di servizi similari, ma non vedo Politico stracciarsi le vesti... Poi, per dirsela tutta, trovo più preoccupante che un giudice federale in servizio a Galveston in Texas sia chiamato a pronunciarsi su una questione, come la transizione IANA, su cui governi e altri stakeholder di mezzo mondo hanno lavorato per anni. Sono d'accordo comunque che il problema fondamentale sia l'incapacità di molti legislatori di prendersi le proprie responsabilità in maniera seria. A presto! Andrea On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> wrote: Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale sono d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un articolo[politico.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.politico.eu_pro_eur…> di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni di Internet Governance. Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate? A presto, Andrea From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33 To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it>, Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto Caro Andrea, Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :) Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su questo articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi che si sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, TechFreedom e altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo troverete interessante. Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico. Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? :) +++ https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana-transition-94dff8f…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse Transition On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.techfreedom.org_St…> in federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a California non-profit. Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge denied the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This means NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, and also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with VeriSign (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN to the root zone file, the master database of top level domain names). This ruling does not, however, resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But even more than that, letting the contract lapse does not make the Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions. This ruling does not resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring. Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even if they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. And even if thislawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits. So, how likely is this particular judge to rule in favor of the states on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying a TRO indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth noting that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his uncertainty about the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really made me think”, “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this is a really hard case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first impression: raising questions never before answered by a court. Most notably, the hearing apparently did not discuss the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision in Kremen v. Network Solutions[caselaw.findlaw.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caselaw.findlaw.com_us-…> concerning sex.com[sex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sex.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1…>, which held that property rights are property. Nor did the GAO in its recent report[gao.gov]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gao.gov_assets_680_…> on the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.pff.org_archives_2…> back in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed relationship between NTIA and ICANN). The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a Trump Administration. This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits. Open Legal Concerns To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states: 1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that abandoning this government property right requires Congressional authorization; 2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect free speech, converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate the First Amendment; 3. NTIA violated administrative law by failing to build an adequate record and respond to public comment on the matter; 4. NTIA lacks statutory authority to cede responsibility over the Domain Name System; and 5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of .GOV, NTIA is tortiously interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names. The Path Not Taken Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> in The New York Times earlier this week: We should break the transition into two phases. Phase 1: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN misbehaves. Phase 2: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied with the reforms. I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to effectively govern ICANN. Further Reading See our other work on the IANA transition, including: * Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> in The New York Times’ Room for Debate * Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_s…> before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition * Our white paper[techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_post_15…> on the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition * Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition About TechFreedom TechFreedom[techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_&d=DQMF…> is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology. And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe them, not because someone paid us to. On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> wrote: mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla lista IGF Italia 2016. (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi mandando una email a 2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT) Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni IANA di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di Internet) e’ completata. Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA (NTIA), e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.co.uk_news_tech…> interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a contattarmi. Saluti e buon we! Andrea Beccalli http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-st…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 01, 2016 News Media Contact: Juliana Gruenwald Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling: The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' application for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA functions contract has expired. -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…>

Oct. 3, 2016

Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

by Andrea Glorioso

Caro Andrea, la fine del contratto tra ICANN e il governo statunitense, per quanto importante come passaggio, non muove di una virgola la centralità che il sistema giuridico (e, sospetto, politico) statunitense continuerà ad esercitare su ICANN, finché quest'ultimo (ultima?) continuerà ad essere una not-for-profit con sede legale a Marina del Rey, California. Bisogna avere ben chiari i termini del problema se lo si vuole risolvere sul lungo periodo. :) P.S.: credo che le mie mail non arrivino sulla lista IGF-Italia, poiché non vi sono iscritto. A presto, Andrea On Sunday, October 2, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> wrote: > Ciao Andrea, si il caso di Galveston e’ anche secondo me diverso, piu’ > preoccupante perché usato come ricorso politico alla "11th hour" e se ce ne > fosse stato bisogno, un esempio in più della necessita di terminare I > contratto IANA, per rendere indipendente in DNS. > A presto, > Andrea > > From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com');>> on behalf > of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it');>> > Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 23:43 > To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> > Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demartin(a)polito.it');>>, Center Nexa < > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it');>>, IGF Italia > - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','2016(a)igf-italia.it');>> > Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto > > Caro Andrea, > > Grazie per l'articolo. Interessante, anche se francamente un po' > sbilanciato - la Corte di Giustizia dell'UE non è certo l'unica a > pronunciarsi su queste materie, per riprendere l'esempio di Uber negli > Stati Uniti ci sono state molte pronunce e cause in corso sulla natura e > gli obblighi di servizi similari, ma non vedo Politico stracciarsi le > vesti... > > Poi, per dirsela tutta, trovo più preoccupante che un giudice federale in > servizio a Galveston in Texas sia chiamato a pronunciarsi su una questione, > come la transizione IANA, su cui governi e altri stakeholder di mezzo mondo > hanno lavorato per anni. > > Sono d'accordo comunque che il problema fondamentale sia l'incapacità di > molti legislatori di prendersi le proprie responsabilità in maniera seria. > > A presto! > > Andrea > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> wrote: > >> Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli >> scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA >> dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. >> >> Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale sono >> d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un >> articolo[politico.eu] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.politico.eu_pro_eur…> >> di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. >> Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle >> difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni >> di Internet Governance. >> >> Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un >> workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate? >> >> A presto, >> Andrea >> >> From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso < >> andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it> >> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33 >> To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> >> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it>, Center Nexa < >> nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder >> programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it> >> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto >> >> Caro Andrea, >> >> Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni >> connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" >> delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :) >> >> Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su questo >> articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi che si >> sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, TechFreedom e >> altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo troverete >> interessante. >> >> Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in >> un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a >> Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e >> saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e >> la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e >> con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito >> domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del >> termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per >> certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti >> questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per >> rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico. >> >> Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? :) >> >> +++ >> >> https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana-tra >> nsition-94dff8ff1405#.rx5pckssl[techpolicycorner.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> >> *Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse >> Transition* >> >> On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.techfreedom.org_St…> in >> federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its >> responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a >> California non-profit. >> >> Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge denied >> the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This means >> NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, and >> also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with VeriSign >> (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN to the >> root zone file, the master database of top level domain names). >> >> This ruling does *not*, however, resolve the underlying legal questions >> raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The >> judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” >> if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But >> even more than that, letting the contract lapse does *not* make the >> Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not >> lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying >> that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained >> with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the >> interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA >> if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions. >> >> This ruling does *not *resolve the underlying legal questions raised by >> the states >> >> Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and >> VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes >> to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right >> back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring. >> >> Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even if >> they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. >> And even if *this*lawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the >> issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come >> up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains >> or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of >> limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a >> long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits. >> >> So, how likely is *this particular judge* to rule in favor of the states >> on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying a TRO >> indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth noting >> that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his uncertainty about >> the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really made me think”, >> “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this is a really hard >> case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first impression: raising >> questions never before answered by a court. >> >> Most notably, the hearing apparently did *not* discuss the Ninth >> Circuit’s 2002 decision in *Kremen v. Network Solutions* >> [caselaw.findlaw.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caselaw.findlaw.com_us-…> >> concerning sex.com[sex.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sex.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1…>, >> which held that property rights *are* property. Nor did the GAO in its recent >> report[gao.gov] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gao.gov_assets_680_…> on >> the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain >> names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them >> (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one >> my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.pff.org_archives_2…> back >> in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed >> relationship between NTIA and ICANN). >> >> The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering >> this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will >> go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The >> issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a >> Trump Administration. >> >> This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits. >> >> Open Legal Concerns >> >> To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states: >> >> 1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who >> may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that >> abandoning this *government property right *requires Congressional >> authorization; >> 2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect *free speech*, >> converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate >> the First Amendment; >> 3. NTIA violated *administrative law *by failing to build an adequate >> record and respond to public comment on the matter; >> 4. NTIA lacks *statutory authority *to cede responsibility over the >> Domain Name System; and >> 5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of *.GOV, *NTIA is tortiously >> interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names. >> >> The Path Not Taken >> >> Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> >> in *The New York Times *earlier this week: >> >> We should break the transition into two phases. >> >> *Phase 1*: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the >> master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department >> should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, >> but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, >> this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check >> on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN >> misbehaves. >> >> *Phase 2*: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial >> period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other >> reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied >> with the reforms. >> >> I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or >> reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of >> international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan >> Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest >> footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet >> another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, >> here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest >> concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional >> approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to >> effectively govern ICANN. >> Further Reading >> >> See our other work on the IANA transition, including: >> >> - Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> >> and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> >> in *The New York Times*’ Room for Debate >> - Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_s…> before >> the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition >> - Our white paper[techfreedom.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_post_15…> on >> the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition >> - Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> >> urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition >> >> *About TechFreedom* >> >> TechFreedom[techfreedom.org] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_&d=DQMF…> >> is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to >> chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where >> technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology. >> >> And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to >> work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe >> them, not because someone paid us to. >> >> On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> >> wrote: >> >>> mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla >>> lista IGF Italia 2016. (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla >>> preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi >>> mandando una email a 2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT) >>> >>> Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni IANA >>> di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di Internet) >>> e’ completata. >>> >>> Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA >>> (NTIA), e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.co.uk_news_tech…> >>> interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di >>> questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a >>> contattarmi. >>> >>> Saluti e buon we! >>> Andrea Beccalli >>> >>> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assista >>> nt-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract[ntia.doc.gov] >>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> >>> >>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: >>> October 01, 2016 >>> News Media Contact: >>> Juliana Gruenwald >>> >>> Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information >>> and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling: >>> >>> The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' application >>> for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA >>> functions contract has expired. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> >> -- >> I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep >> it in mind. >> Twitter: @andreaglorioso >> Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> >> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[ >> linkedin.com] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> >> > > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk= > tab_pro[linkedin.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

Oct. 2, 2016

Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

by Andrea Beccalli

Ciao Andrea, si il caso di Galveston e’ anche secondo me diverso, piu’ preoccupante perché usato come ricorso politico alla "11th hour" e se ce ne fosse stato bisogno, un esempio in più della necessita di terminare I contratto IANA, per rendere indipendente in DNS. A presto, Andrea From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com<mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com>> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it<mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it>> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 23:43 To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it<mailto:demartin@polito.it>>, Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it<mailto:2016@igf-italia.it>> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto Caro Andrea, Grazie per l'articolo. Interessante, anche se francamente un po' sbilanciato - la Corte di Giustizia dell'UE non è certo l'unica a pronunciarsi su queste materie, per riprendere l'esempio di Uber negli Stati Uniti ci sono state molte pronunce e cause in corso sulla natura e gli obblighi di servizi similari, ma non vedo Politico stracciarsi le vesti... Poi, per dirsela tutta, trovo più preoccupante che un giudice federale in servizio a Galveston in Texas sia chiamato a pronunciarsi su una questione, come la transizione IANA, su cui governi e altri stakeholder di mezzo mondo hanno lavorato per anni. Sono d'accordo comunque che il problema fondamentale sia l'incapacità di molti legislatori di prendersi le proprie responsabilità in maniera seria. A presto! Andrea On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>> wrote: Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale sono d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un articolo[politico.eu]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.politico.eu_pro_eur…> di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni di Internet Governance. Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate? A presto, Andrea From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com');>> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it');>> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33 To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demartin(a)polito.it');>>, Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it');>>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','2016(a)igf-italia.it');>> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto Caro Andrea, Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :) Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su questo articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi che si sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, TechFreedom e altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo troverete interessante. Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico. Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? :) +++ https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana-transition-94dff8f…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse Transition On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.techfreedom.org_St…> in federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a California non-profit. Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge denied the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This means NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, and also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with VeriSign (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN to the root zone file, the master database of top level domain names). This ruling does not, however, resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But even more than that, letting the contract lapse does not make the Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions. This ruling does not resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring. Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even if they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. And even if thislawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits. So, how likely is this particular judge to rule in favor of the states on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying a TRO indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth noting that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his uncertainty about the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really made me think”, “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this is a really hard case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first impression: raising questions never before answered by a court. Most notably, the hearing apparently did not discuss the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision in Kremen v. Network Solutions[caselaw.findlaw.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caselaw.findlaw.com_us-…> concerning sex.com[sex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sex.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1…>, which held that property rights are property. Nor did the GAO in its recent report[gao.gov]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gao.gov_assets_680_…> on the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.pff.org_archives_2…> back in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed relationship between NTIA and ICANN). The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a Trump Administration. This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits. Open Legal Concerns To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states: 1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that abandoning this government property right requires Congressional authorization; 2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect free speech, converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate the First Amendment; 3. NTIA violated administrative law by failing to build an adequate record and respond to public comment on the matter; 4. NTIA lacks statutory authority to cede responsibility over the Domain Name System; and 5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of .GOV, NTIA is tortiously interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names. The Path Not Taken Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> in The New York Times earlier this week: We should break the transition into two phases. Phase 1: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN misbehaves. Phase 2: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied with the reforms. I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to effectively govern ICANN. Further Reading See our other work on the IANA transition, including: * Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> in The New York Times’ Room for Debate * Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_s…> before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition * Our white paper[techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_post_15…> on the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition * Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition About TechFreedom TechFreedom[techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_&d=DQMF…> is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology. And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe them, not because someone paid us to. On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> wrote: mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla lista IGF Italia 2016. (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi mandando una email a 2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT) Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni IANA di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di Internet) e’ completata. Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA (NTIA), e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.co.uk_news_tech…> interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a contattarmi. Saluti e buon we! Andrea Beccalli http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-st…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 01, 2016 News Media Contact: Juliana Gruenwald Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling: The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' application for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA functions contract has expired. -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…>

Oct. 2, 2016

Richiesta CANCELLAZIONE DALLA MAILIG LIST

by amandarano＠libero.it

GENTILISSIMI,VI SALUTO E VI CHIEDO CORTESEMENTE DI CANCELLARMI DALLAMAILING LIST.CORDIALITA' A. MANDARANO

Oct. 2, 2016

Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

by Andrea Glorioso

Caro Andrea, Grazie per l'articolo. Interessante, anche se francamente un po' sbilanciato - la Corte di Giustizia dell'UE non è certo l'unica a pronunciarsi su queste materie, per riprendere l'esempio di Uber negli Stati Uniti ci sono state molte pronunce e cause in corso sulla natura e gli obblighi di servizi similari, ma non vedo Politico stracciarsi le vesti... Poi, per dirsela tutta, trovo più preoccupante che un giudice federale in servizio a Galveston in Texas sia chiamato a pronunciarsi su una questione, come la transizione IANA, su cui governi e altri stakeholder di mezzo mondo hanno lavorato per anni. Sono d'accordo comunque che il problema fondamentale sia l'incapacità di molti legislatori di prendersi le proprie responsabilità in maniera seria. A presto! Andrea On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org> wrote: > Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli > scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA > dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. > > Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale sono > d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un articolo > <http://www.politico.eu/pro/european-court-of-justice-tech-cases-uber-airbnb/> > di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. > Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle > difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni > di Internet Governance. > > Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un > workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate? > > A presto, > Andrea > > From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com');>> on behalf > of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it');>> > Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33 > To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> > Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','demartin(a)polito.it');>>, Center Nexa < > nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it');>>, IGF Italia > - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','2016(a)igf-italia.it');>> > Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto > > Caro Andrea, > > Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni > connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" > delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :) > > Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su questo > articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi che si > sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, TechFreedom e > altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo troverete > interessante. > > Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in > un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a > Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e > saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e > la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e > con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito > domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del > termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per > certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti > questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per > rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico. > > Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? :) > > +++ > > https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana- > transition-94dff8ff1405#.rx5pckssl[techpolicycorner.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> > *Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse > Transition* > > On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.techfreedom.org_St…> in > federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its > responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a > California non-profit. > > Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge denied > the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This means > NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, and > also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with VeriSign > (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN to the > root zone file, the master database of top level domain names). > > This ruling does *not*, however, resolve the underlying legal questions > raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The > judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” > if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But > even more than that, letting the contract lapse does *not* make the > Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not > lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying > that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained > with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the > interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA > if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions. > > This ruling does *not *resolve the underlying legal questions raised by > the states > > Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and > VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes > to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right > back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring. > > Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even if > they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. > And even if *this*lawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the > issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come > up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains > or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of > limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a > long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits. > > So, how likely is *this particular judge* to rule in favor of the states > on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying a TRO > indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth noting > that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his uncertainty about > the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really made me think”, > “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this is a really hard > case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first impression: raising > questions never before answered by a court. > > Most notably, the hearing apparently did *not* discuss the Ninth > Circuit’s 2002 decision in *Kremen v. Network Solutions* > [caselaw.findlaw.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caselaw.findlaw.com_us-…> > concerning sex.com[sex.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sex.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1…>, > which held that property rights *are* property. Nor did the GAO in its recent > report[gao.gov] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gao.gov_assets_680_…> on > the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain > names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them > (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one > my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.pff.org_archives_2…> back > in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed > relationship between NTIA and ICANN). > > The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering > this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will > go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The > issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a > Trump Administration. > > This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits. > > Open Legal Concerns > > To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states: > > 1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who > may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that > abandoning this *government property right *requires Congressional > authorization; > 2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect *free speech*, > converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate > the First Amendment; > 3. NTIA violated *administrative law *by failing to build an adequate > record and respond to public comment on the matter; > 4. NTIA lacks *statutory authority *to cede responsibility over the > Domain Name System; and > 5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of *.GOV, *NTIA is tortiously > interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names. > > The Path Not Taken > > Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> > in *The New York Times *earlier this week: > > We should break the transition into two phases. > > *Phase 1*: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the > master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department > should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, > but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, > this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check > on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN > misbehaves. > > *Phase 2*: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial > period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other > reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied > with the reforms. > > I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or > reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of > international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan > Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest > footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet > another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, > here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest > concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional > approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to > effectively govern ICANN. > Further Reading > > See our other work on the IANA transition, including: > > - Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> > and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> > in *The New York Times*’ Room for Debate > - Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_s…> before > the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition > - Our white paper[techfreedom.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_post_15…> on > the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition > - Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> > urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition > > *About TechFreedom* > > TechFreedom[techfreedom.org] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_&d=DQMF…> > is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to > chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where > technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology. > > And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to > work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe > them, not because someone paid us to. > > On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org');>> wrote: > >> mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla >> lista IGF Italia 2016. (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla >> preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi >> mandando una email a 2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT) >> >> Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni IANA >> di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di Internet) >> e’ completata. >> >> Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA (NTIA), >> e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.co.uk_news_tech…> >> interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di >> questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a >> contattarmi. >> >> Saluti e buon we! >> Andrea Beccalli >> >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assista >> nt-secretary-strickling-iana-functions-contract[ntia.doc.gov] >> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> >> >> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: >> October 01, 2016 >> News Media Contact: >> Juliana Gruenwald >> >> Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and >> NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling: >> >> The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' application >> for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA >> functions contract has expired. >> >> >> > > -- > > -- > I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep > it in mind. > Twitter: @andreaglorioso > Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk= > tab_pro[linkedin.com] > <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…> > -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro

Oct. 1, 2016

Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto

by Andrea Beccalli

Ciao Andrea, grazie per l’articolo molto interessante! Credo che gli scenari che prospetta di altre cause contro la decisione di NTIA dipenderanno in gran parte dall’esito delle presidenziali USA. Riguardo il ruolo delle Corti nel policy making della sfera digitale sono d’accordo con la tua analisi, ti giro in allegato un articolo<http://www.politico.eu/pro/european-court-of-justice-tech-cases-uber-airbnb/> di Poltico che ho mandato anche alla lista IGF Italia qualche giorno fa. Penso che questo ruolo in estremis delle Corti sia anche un sintomo delle difficolta’ delle nostre istituzioni legislative nell’affrontare questioni di Internet Governance. Sarebbe interessante raccogliere gli spunti della lista NEXA verso un workshop al prossimo IGF Italia a Venezia? Che ne pensate? A presto, Andrea From: <sama.digitalpolicy(a)gmail.com<mailto:sama.digitalpolicy@gmail.com>> on behalf of Andrea Glorioso <andrea(a)digitalpolicy.it<mailto:andrea@digitalpolicy.it>> Date: Saturday 1 October 2016 16:33 To: Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>> Cc: "J.C. DE MARTIN" <demartin(a)polito.it<mailto:demartin@polito.it>>, Center Nexa <nexa(a)server-nexa.polito.it<mailto:nexa@server-nexa.polito.it>>, IGF Italia - Gruppo multistakeholder programma edizione 2016 <2016(a)igf-italia.it<mailto:2016@igf-italia.it>> Subject: Re: [nexa] il DNS e' indipendente, il contratto USA e' scaduto Caro Andrea, Grazie. È stato un processo molto interessante e non senza alcuni connotati da "soap opera", il che non sorprende in questa "silly season" delle elezioni presidenziali statunitensi. :) Per completezza, mi permetto di richiamare la vostra attenzione su questo articolo di Berin Szoka, presidente di TechFreedom, uno dei gruppi che si sono opposti strenuamente alla transizione (più precisamente, TechFreedom e altri hanno suggerito una transizione "a due fasi"). Spero lo troverete interessante. Facendo un passo indietro e analizzando la questione specifica in un'ottica più ampia, a me pare abbastanza chiaro che le Corti (che stiano a Galveston, New York, Strasburgo, Lussemburgo, Roma, o altrove) sono e saranno sempre più chiamate a prendere decisioni con impatti su Internet e la "sfera digitale" che vanno ben al di là dell'oggetto del contendere e con effetti extra-giurisdizionali, a volte globali. Credo sia lecito domandarsi se la "magistratura" (nel senso più ampio e internazionale del termine) sia effettivamente ben preparata a questa responsabilità. So per certo che sia EUROJUST (EU) e il Federal Judicial Center (US) si sono posti questa domanda, e stanno considerando le maniere più appropriate per rafforzare lo scambio di "buone pratiche" a livello transatlantico. Qualcosa su cui, forse, gli amici di NEXA possono fornire buoni spunti? :) +++ https://techpolicycorner.org/court-refuses-to-block-iana-transition-94dff8f…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> Court Refuses to Block IANA Transition - But Courts Could Still Reverse Transition On Wednesday, four state attorneys general sued[docs.techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__docs.techfreedom.org_St…> in federal court to stop the Department of Commerce from ceding its responsibility over the technical heart of the Internet to ICANN, a California non-profit. Today, after a brief hearing with lawyers on both sides, the judge denied the states’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO). This means NTIA can proceed with allowing its IANA contract with ICANN to lapse, and also to terminate its Root Zone Management Agreement contract with VeriSign (which requires NTIA to sign off on changes recommended by ICANN to the root zone file, the master database of top level domain names). This ruling does not, however, resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states. Nor does it mean the Transition is a done deal. The judge today merely ruled that the states had not shown “irreparable injury” if these two contracts lapsed. This is, in general, a very high bar. But even more than that, letting the contract lapse does not make the Transition permanent: If a court eventually rules that NTIA could not lawfully relinquish its responsibilities, it will essentially be saying that, when the contracts lapsed, control over the Root Zone File remained with NTIA, that ICANN had been exercising control unlawfully in the interim, and that if ICANN would need to negotiate a new contract with NTIA if it wants to continue exercising the IANA functions. This ruling does not resolve the underlying legal questions raised by the states Such a declaratory judgment would be easy to enforce: both ICANN and VeriSign are U.S. corporations, and can be enjoined from making any changes to the root without affirmative authorization from NTIA. We will be right back where we started. The contracts, in other words, are a red herring. Now, how likely is this? The states aren’t likely to give up, but even if they do, the House may still join the fight, as could other intervenors. And even if thislawsuit fizzles, some other plaintiff could raise the issue in the future — and there’s every reason to think that it will come up in litigation between ICANN and the companies that run top level domains or sell second level domains to consumers. There is no statute of limitations on the issues raised by the plaintiffs. This issue could cast a long shadow over ICANN for years until a court finally rules on the merits. So, how likely is this particular judge to rule in favor of the states on the merits? In general, it’s probably safe to assume that denying a TRO indicates skepticism on the merits, but in this case, it’s worth noting that the Judge, in announcing his decision, expressed his uncertainty about the issue (“some really interesting arguments”, “really made me think”, “but someone has to win”, etc.). More fundamentally, this is a really hard case — and what lawyers would call an issue of first impression: raising questions never before answered by a court. Most notably, the hearing apparently did not discuss the Ninth Circuit’s 2002 decision in Kremen v. Network Solutions[caselaw.findlaw.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__caselaw.findlaw.com_us-…> concerning sex.com[sex.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__sex.com&d=DQMFaQ&c=FmY1…>, which held that property rights are property. Nor did the GAO in its recent report[gao.gov]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.gao.gov_assets_680_…> on the issue. If domain names are property rights, surely Top Level Domain names are, too. And if they are, why isn’t the database that manages them (the Root Zone File)? The point is just that this is a hard question, one my colleague Mike Palage first raised[blog.pff.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__blog.pff.org_archives_2…> back in 2009 in our work about the then-pending “transition” (to a more relaxed relationship between NTIA and ICANN). The judge may very well change his mind on the merits after considering this issue more fully. And once he rules on the merits, the decision will go to the Fifth Circuit — still a conservative bastion — on appeal. The issue could go all the way to the Supreme Court, especially if there is a Trump Administration. This ain’t over til a court (or more than one) rules on the merits. Open Legal Concerns To summarize, here are the concerns raised by the states: 1. The U.S. government has long exercised exclusive control over who may edit the Root Zone File that ties together the Internet, and that abandoning this government property right requires Congressional authorization; 2. Absent a firm guarantee that ICANN will protect free speech, converting what has been a public forum into a private one would violate the First Amendment; 3. NTIA violated administrative law by failing to build an adequate record and respond to public comment on the matter; 4. NTIA lacks statutory authority to cede responsibility over the Domain Name System; and 5. By failing to secure U.S. ownership of .GOV, NTIA is tortiously interfering with the contracts that states hold for their .GOV domain names. The Path Not Taken Here’s the approach to the issue I urged[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> in The New York Times earlier this week: We should break the transition into two phases. Phase 1: No government, including ours, should meddle in editing the master database that of top level domain names. The Commerce Department should quickly negotiate a new contract that ends direct U.S. involvement, but retains the ability to reassert that role if necessary. Importantly, this would temporarily preserve what’s always been the most important check on ICANN: Commerce’s right to rebid the transition contract if ICANN misbehaves. Phase 2: Commerce shouldn’t end the new contract until after a trial period for the new governance model, all accountability measures and other reforms are implemented, and ICANN multistakeholder community is satisfied with the reforms. I’ve warned all along that having a U.S. court block the transition, or reverse it after the fact, would be the worst case scenario in terms of international backlash, and in poisoning the well for a bipartisan Congressional solution that puts a post-Transition ICANN on the soundest footing possible. I’ve never wanted this issue to become fodder for yet another partisan battle — rather than a debate over the merits. And yet, here we are — as the result of the Administration angrily dismissing honest concerns about the legality of doing the Transition without Congressional approval, and about the ability of multistakeholder community to effectively govern ICANN. Further Reading See our other work on the IANA transition, including: * Essays by Szóka[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> and Brett Schaefer[nytimes.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.nytimes.com_roomfor…> in The New York Times’ Room for Debate * Berin Szòka’s testimony[techpolicycorner.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_s…> before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the transition * Our white paper[techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_post_15…> on the concerns that must be addressed before the IANA transition * Coalition letter[techpolicycorner.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__techpolicycorner.org_c…> urging Congress to temporarily block the IANA transition About TechFreedom TechFreedom[techfreedom.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__techfreedom.org_&d=DQMF…> is a non-profit, non-partisan technology policy think tank. We work to chart a path forward for policymakers towards a bright future where technology enhances freedom, and freedom enhances technology. And, in case you were wondering, no one has given TechFreedom a dime to work on this issue. We have raised concerns because we actually believe them, not because someone paid us to. On Saturday, October 1, 2016, Andrea Beccalli <andrea.beccalli(a)icann.org<mailto:andrea.beccalli@icann.org>> wrote: mi scuso per il cross-posting, inoltro qui un messaggio inviato alla lista IGF Italia 2016. (Per chi fosse interessato a partecipare alla preparazione dell’IGF Italia 2016, Venezia 14-15 Novembre, può iscriversi mandando una email a 2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','2016(a)IGF-ITALIA.IT');>). Salve a tutti, la transizione delle supervisione USA sulle funzioni IANA di ICANN (la gestione delle risorse critiche del sistema DNS di Internet) e’ completata. Qui sotto il comunicato stampa del Dipartimento del Commercio USA (NTIA), e a seguire un articolo[bbc.co.uk]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.bbc.co.uk_news_tech…> interessante della bbc che racconta il processo storico alla base di questo risultato. Chi e’ interessato a saperne di più non esiti a contattarmi. Saluti e buon we! Andrea Beccalli http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-st…<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.ntia.doc.gov_press-…> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: October 01, 2016 News Media Contact: Juliana Gruenwald Statement from Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Lawrence E. Strickling: The federal court in Galveston, Texas denied the plaintiffs' application for declaratory and injunctive relief. As of October 1, 2016, the IANA functions contract has expired. -- -- I speak only for myself. Sometimes I do not even agree with myself. Keep it in mind. Twitter: @andreaglorioso Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/andrea.glorioso[facebook.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.facebook.com_andre…> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=1749288&trk=tab_pro[linkedin.com]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.linkedin.com_profil…>

Oct. 1, 2016