[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries

Wed Dec 3 11:44:50 EET 2014

Apologies but could someone elaborate on the divisions on this issue in 
NCSG - thanks.  At first glance (as a newcomer to the issue) this would 
appear to be a pretty clear +1.

On 12/3/2014 9:36 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Any thoughts? Is there any position we want to take on this? Are we 
> going to send Ron a response? I know we've been somewhat divided on 
> certain aspects of this in the past.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Amr
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> *From: *"Ron Andruff" <ra at dotsportllc.com <mailto:ra at dotsportllc.com>>
>> *Subject: **FW: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter 
>> supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries*
>> *Date: *December 2, 2014 at 5:23:18 PM GMT+1
>> *To: *"'Avri Doria'" <avri at acm.org <mailto:avri at acm.org>>, 
>> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>, "'Amr Elsadr'" 
>> <aelsadr at egyptig.org <mailto:aelsadr at egyptig.org>>, 
>> <dave at difference.com.au <mailto:dave at difference.com.au>>, "'Maria 
>> Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com <mailto:maria.farrell at gmail.com>>, 
>> "'Rafik Dammak'" <rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>>
>>
>> Dear all,
>> If ever there was an excellent example of Board/staff lack of 
>> accountability it is this issue that I have been nagging you about 
>> for some months now... You will find a reference in the BC draft 
>> (attached) to the NGPC having considered the_ALAC resolution_not 
>> relevant and full steam ahead...  How can that be possible when we 
>> are talking about end-user confusion and certain fraud in these 
>> regulated industry strings?!
>> Now would be a good time to draft some support from the NCUC/NCSG.  
>> (All of the major voices in the BC have signed on to this draft, so I 
>> expect it will be send on 10 Dec. as noted.)
>> Can you guys make this happen?  Trying to build consensus around this 
>> most important issue...
>> Please see below and attached.
>> Thank you for your consideration.
>> Kind regards,
>> RA
>> *Ron Andruff*
>> *dotSport LLC*
>> *www.lifedotsport.com <http://www.lifedotsport.com/>*
>> *From:*bc-private-bounces at icann.org 
>> <mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org>[mailto:bc-private-bounces at icann.org]*On 
>> Behalf Of*Steve DelBianco
>> *Sent:*Sunday, November 30, 2014 17:25
>> *To:*BC Private
>> *Subject:*[Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting 
>> ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
>> Last month, Ron Andruff asked the BC to support ALAC's call for a 
>> freeze on contracting and delegation of new gTLDs in regulated 
>> industries.
>> Several BC members supported Ron's idea via email, and we discussed 
>> on our 20-Nov member call.
>> Drawing on prior BC positions, I drafted a letter (attached) that Ron 
>> reviewed and approved. Now we need BC members to review and comment.
>> Please Reply All by 10-Dec-2014 with your edits and comments.
>> ---Steve
>> On 11/7/14, 10:32 PM, "Ron Andruff" <randruff at rnapartners.com 
>> <mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     Dear BC colleagues,
>>     Category 1 strings such as .HEALTH, .LOTTO and .INSURANCE (list
>>     noted in yellow in the attachment) have been a concern to BC
>>     members, to the GAC and to the ALAC since the first discussions
>>     at ICANN 38 Brussels during 'the Scorecard' development to
>>     resolve open new gTLD issues between the Board and GAC. Numerous
>>     discussions have since taken place between the GAC and the New
>>     gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) and every GAC communique since
>>     ICANN 46 Beijing has referenced the GAC's concerns for lack of
>>     public interest safeguards.  These strings are associated with
>>     highly-sensitive, regulated industry sectors, where consumer
>>     confusion or harm is considered a high probability, and while not
>>     necessarily regulated exactly alike across all countries, hold
>>     more similarities than differences.
>>     BC members will recall that the Business Constituency has also
>>     expressed concern on many occasions in this regard, particularly
>>     about fraud and abusive registrations at the second level.
>>     Despite the GAC having called for safeguards, ICANN staff has
>>     roundly ignored these requests and proceeded to sign eight
>>     Registry Agreements in preparation for rolling out the 28
>>     high-sensitive strings. Staff gave no indication to the GAC that
>>     they were doing so, and several governmental reps to the GAC are
>>     very concerned about this.
>>
>>     At ICANN 51 LA, Evan Leibovitch, Chair of the ALAC New gTLD
>>     Committee, read an ALAC just-passed resolution
>>     <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/49358478/AL-ALAC-ST-1014-01-00-EN.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1413502148000&api=v2>into
>>     the record at the Public Forum.  The resolution calls for
>>     freezing the 28 highly-sensitive, regulated industry strings
>>     (Category 1 strings) until such time as a joint ALAC-GAC working
>>     group can determine that appropriate safeguards are indeed in
>>     place to protect the public interest.
>>     I believe that the BC positions regarding Category 1 strings are
>>     consistent with the ALAC's resolution and call to action, and
>>     therefore would like to make the following recommendations:
>>     I ask that Steve Delbianco, our Vice Chair, Policy Coordination,
>>     convene a small team to draft a letter of support for ALAC's
>>     resolution to be sent to the Chair of the New gTLD Process
>>     Committee with a copy to the Board; second, I propose that, if
>>     agreed by the BC membership, that the BC then ask the IPC, ISPCP
>>     and the NCSG to sign onto our letter, or send a similarly
>>     supportive statement. Thirdly, I propose that the BC identify
>>     three members to join the ALAC-GAC Working Group, as the
>>     resolution specifically noted that other community members are
>>     invited to join.
>>     With staff demonstrating blatant disregard to the ALAC and GAC
>>     concerns, time is of the essence for the BC and the greater ICANN
>>     community to support the ALAC resolution that calls for a freeze
>>     of all 28 strings immediately to ensure appropriate
>>     accountability can be put in place.
>>     In my view, this is a rare opportunity for the community to make
>>     right something the NGPC has apparently been loath to do despite
>>     repeated requests from both stakeholders in the ICANN community
>>     and the GAC to ensure that Category 1 string operators provide
>>     appropriate safeguards BEFORE they 'go live'.
>>     I welcome hearing colleague's views, in particular, your thoughts
>>     Steve?
>>     Kind regards,
>>     RA
>>     *Ron Andruff*
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-- 
Matthew Shears
Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights
Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT)
mshears at cdt.org
+ 44 771 247 2987

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/496f868d/attachment-0001.html>