[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
Matthew Shears
mshears
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>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list