[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 13:59:06 EET 2014

To me it smacks of content regulation, which I'd prefer to see ICANN
avoid. I don't think ICANN should be giving the impression that the
domain string makes assurances -- which require ICANN enforcement --
about the content that might be hosted there.

--Wendy

> 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
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 

-- 
Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org +1 617.863.0613
Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
http://wendy.seltzer.org/
https://www.chillingeffects.org/
https://www.torproject.org/
http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/