[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 16:27:05 EET 2014

Yes I agree with Amr and would be against this proposal because it moves ICANN closer to the business of regulating the use of the Internet and the kind of information "allowed" to be provided online.

Best,
Robin

On Dec 3, 2014, at 2:12 AM, Amr Elsadr wrote:

> Well?, speaking for myself, I?m not in favour of supporting this. In fact, I?d be inclined to object if the Board/NGPC agreed to these demands. My main problem is with what I see as the primary demand of freezing new gTLDs identified as belonging to regulated sectors, although my opinion is based mainly on the health-related gTLDs, and the objections submitted against their delegations.
> 
> Specification 11 (the Public Interest Commitments aka PICs) are part of the registry agreement, and my understanding is that they were added by ICANN staff/board without going through a PDP. There are trademark specifications in the PICs that are very content oriented as opposed to issues specifically pertaining to domain names. I?m pretty much principally opposed to that, but those are there, and need to be dealt with one way or the other.
> 
> Despite that, I don?t feel that a revision of Spec 11 or the associated dispute resolution process used to enforce it requires that a new gTLD delegation be frozen. These are specifications included in a registry agreement with ICANN after the application has already been approved. There is another process, which is part of the new gTLD application that allows a person/entity to submit an objection to the application itself before it is approved on the grounds of limited public interest (also specified in the AG). Matt?, if you recall, Stephanie Duchesneau brought this up during the meeting in Frankfurt. In the case of health-related gTLDs, an objection was submitted in response to the applications for .health, which were (IMHO rightly) overruled.
> 
> I?m not saying that the concerns that have been raised regarding .health are all illegitimate concerns, but I don?t see how freezing the delegation of these gTLDs will help resolve these issues. I believe the concerns should be addressed, as the registries pointed out, in a normal GNSO PDP, and not imposed from the top.
> 
> Like I said, that?s my personal opinion, and I know there are others who disagree with me. I don?t mind that. :)
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Amr
> 
> On Dec 3, 2014, at 10:44 AM, Matthew Shears <mshears at cdt.org> wrote:
> 
>> 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>
>>>> 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>, <robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Amr Elsadr'" <aelsadr at egyptig.org>, <dave at difference.com.au>, "'Maria Farrell'" <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'Rafik Dammak'" <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
>>>> From: 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> 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 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/b790b7c1/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 496 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20141203/b790b7c1/attachment-0001.sig>