Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG

[Ayden Férdeline]

This comment has shaped up very well; a huge thank you to Milton and Kathy for their valuable and substantive additions to it. I have made a few light edits now and hope it will receive the endorsement of the PC.

- Ayden

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG
Local Time: May 17, 2017 4:33 PM
UTC Time: May 17, 2017 3:33 PM
From: kathy at KATHYKLEIMAN.COM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Milton,

Great additions and critiques of Recommendations 1-15! I've added three more sections for our review of Recommendations 16 to 50. Please join us in reviewing and evaluating these recommendations!

Best, Kathy

On 5/17/2017 9:50 AM, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

I have added a bunch of stuff to the document.

[]

From: Rafik Dammak [mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2017 10:25 PM
To: Mueller, Milton L [<milton at gatech.edu>](mailto:milton at gatech.edu); Kathy Kleiman [<Kathy at kathykleiman.com>](mailto:Kathy at kathykleiman.com); Ayden Férdeline [<icann at ferdeline.com>](mailto:icann at ferdeline.com)
Cc: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG

Hi Ayden, Kathy, Milton,

thanks for the comments and suggestion, can you please include them directly in the google doc?

Best,

Rafik

2017-05-16 7:42 GMT+09:00 Mueller, Milton L <milton at gatech.edu>:

Kathy

Thanks for calling this out. I have scanned the report and read the executive summary and recommendations. This is an odd but very ICANNesque report. Look at the basic conclusions the report reached:

Initial indications are that the New gTLD Program has led to a dramatic increase in consumer choice, a modest increase in competition and minimal impact on consumer trust.

Those are the conclusions actually supported by the data. Unfortunately, politics set in immediately and the recommendations reflect an attempt by the IPR interests – who have completely lost their attempt to show that new TLDs were a plague – to win by losing. So the massive number of recommendations, several of which call for holding up all new applications until dozens of studies and changes are completed, are in effect a fishing expedition license that would give the anti-industry crowd another 2 years to find some data – any data – that they can use to hold things up even longer:

“Nonetheless, the Review Team believes that there is a substantial need for more and better data on both competition and pricing and on the impact of safeguards on consumer protection.”

I agree that the data collection recommendations are excessive and reflect the momentum created by a growing bureaucracy. Many have almost nothing to do with consumer protection. One could also characterize this as an attempt by the CCT RT to prolong its existence. It’s nice being flown around…

I probably won’t have time to play a big role in comment development but would urge you not to go one by one through the 50 recommendations. Rather, I would group them into a few simple categories, such as:

A) Useful

B) Delaying tactic

C) Needless bureaucratic expansion that is unjustified by any finding in the report

Finally, I burst out laughing at this one:

“the CCTRT found that GAC participation in the application and evaluation process was largely beneficial and led directly to modifications of applications and applicants more successfully navigating the process.”

Obviously an entirely political finding, for despite repeated references to “data-driven analysis” in the report I cannot find any hard data that supports this conclusion. I think we should call that out. GAC interventions in the application and evaluation process were highly disruptive, unfair, inconsistent, persistently deviated from settled GNSO policy directions, and resulted in all kinds of shadow regulation. We must challenge that finding. At the same time, we should be praising the report for basically coming to the right conclusions when they stick to the facts: opening up the market for new TLDs increased consumer choice, increased competition, and has no discernable negative effect on consumer trust.

Dr. Milton L Mueller

Professor, [School of Public Policy](http://spp.gatech.edu/)

Georgia Institute of Technology

Internet Governance Project

http://internetgovernance.org/

From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Kathy Kleiman
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2017 1:20 PM
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Subject: Re: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG

I agree with Ayden about adding sections that review the recommendations one by one. The fact that there are 50 is extraordinary in and of itself.

Some initial thoughts:
1) A large amount of collection of pricing data is requested in Draft Recommendations 2-8. For those who work with pricing issues, what concerns are raised by ICANN collecting, publishing and acting on pricing data?
2) A number of recommendations direct the GNSO Working Groups to take additional interests and concerns into account. Should a Review Team be directing Working Groups and GNSO policy considerations (particularly here where the Review Team is putting their fingers on the scale towards the interests of Intellectual Property and Business Constituencies?)
3) A number of the recommendations are very vague. This gives great power and discretion to those who will interpret and implement the recommendations. How best to clarify?
4) As Ayden points out, Shadow Regulation appears to be an integral part of these recommendations -- with a very broad approach to abuse. How to narrow to the type of abuse we generally consider to be within the scope of ICANN, e.g,. abuse that impacts the security and stability of the Internet (botnets, malware...)

Work ahead! Please jump in!
Kathy

On 5/15/2017 10:57 AM, Ayden Férdeline wrote:

Hi all,

The Google Doc is opening for me. Thanks for the first draft of this, Poncelet. I would like to suggest that we structure our comment along the 50 (!) recommendations that are in the draft report, if not addressing all of them, at least reacting to the most pertinent ones.

From memory, the Canadian International Pharmacy Association expressed concern in Copenhagen over similarities between some of the recommendations in the CCT RT initial draft and the "Healthy" Domains Initiative. So we might want to look out for traces of shadow regulation in the report. Thanks.

Best wishes,

Ayden Férdeline

[linkedin.com/in/ferdeline](http://www.linkedin.com/in/ferdeline)

-------- Original Message --------

Subject: Re: Reminder CCT RT Initial Draft Comments for NCSG

Local Time: May 15, 2017 2:12 PM

UTC Time: May 15, 2017 1:12 PM

From: matthew at INTPOLICY.COM

To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Hi all - thanks Rafik.

Have any third parties - outside of ICANN - done any work on this issue? It would be important to see if there has been I think.

Also, I don't seem to be able to access the google.doc - says I need permission.

Thanks.

Matthew

On 15/05/2017 14:22, Rafik Dammak wrote:

Hi all,

this is a reminder to review and add your comments on the draft made by Poncelet for NCSG on the Competition, Consumer, Consumer Choice review team report https://docs.google.com/document/d/1agDMTd8rDvhDb5mwg6fdfQSyRpQZjtjxmGaqx5NCJG8/edit

(the public comment is here https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cct-rt-draft-report-2017-03-07-en)

the deadline for submission is the 19th May.

Best,

Rafik

[Image removed
by sender.](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

Virus-free. [www.avg.com](http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient)

--

Matthew Shears

matthew at intpolicy.com

[+447712472987](tel:+44%207712%20472987)

Skype:mshears
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170518/0635889e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: part12.3DF4A290.B878845E at kathykleiman.com
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 444 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20170518/0635889e/attachment.jpe>