[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [Bc-private] FOR REVIEW BY 10-DEC: BC Letter supporting ALAC's freeze on new gTLDs in regulated industries
Amr Elsadr
aelsadr
Thu Dec 4 09:55:13 EET 2014
Hi,
In the absence of a freeze of any new gTLD contracts or delegations, I would welcome an opportunity to review the PICs and PICDRP. Although I suspect that during a review, we won?t necessarily be on the same page as ALAC, GAC and the CSG constituencies regarding ICANN?s role in content regulation via the registry agreement.
Thanks.
Amr
On Dec 4, 2014, at 5:32 AM, joy <joy at apc.org> wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi - thanks for raising this Amr and Matthew
> While I agree with Robin and Wendy that ICANN should not regulate content, and that a freeze on delegations is not the right approach. Having said that, I also agree with David that the current Public Interest Commitments is not being very effective.
> I think if the policy is somehow not working, it is better to fix the policy than to institute freezes on some delegations and not others.
> At the same time, standing on pure principles might be a mistake as there are legitimate substantive concerns around this kind of issue for many non-commercial users. At ccTLD level, for example, there are various examples of moderated 2LD e.g related to .gov .health or .bank and many users are very comfortable with that. While gTLD is of course very different, and I am not suggesting ICANN have a role in relation to content regulation, and a freeze on some delegations and not others is unwise, not supporting legitimate concerns about a failure of policy risks sending the wrong message and not reflecting the diversity of views.
> Perhaps a call to review the PIC policy would be a better option?
>
>
> Joy
>
>
> On 4/12/2014 2:46 p.m., David Cake wrote:
> > In general, I agree with the
> position that we should not be trying to turn domain delegation
> into regulation. And the hand wringing about regulated industries
> is the GAC overstepping its role - I've noted before, for example,
> that in many jurisdictions 'doctor' is not a regulated string
> (including Australia, the govt who initially was pushing the
> strongest on this issue). I've used the example of the Australian
> business 'the Tap Doctor', a chain of plumbers who drive around
> with giant taps on their cars, as an example of the unregulated
> use of doctor that Australian GAC members would have been aware
> of. I agree with the general position that, while there are
> legitimate concerns with health domains, that not delegating them,
> or trying to make domain registration into a regulatory process,
> isn't the right way to deal with them.
>
> >
>
> > That said, while I agree with the general position that
> trying to turn DNS registration into a regulatory process is a bad
> idea, I do think that the current PIC process is absolutely
> terrible, was enacted with terrible process (without
> multi-stakeholder input, pretty much just by staff in response to
> GAC), has led to terrible results (like widespread inclusion of
> explicitly rejected rights protection measures like the GPML
> idea), and that Ron Andruff's ideas regarding how to improve the
> PIC are not that bad, and would be an improvement on the current
> position. So I don't think we should be defending the status quo,
> which not only entrenches the regulation via delegation idea but
> does so very badly in a way with a lot of adverse consequences. If
> the PIC policy etc was to be reviewed, I think we might end up
> with some significant improvements to the policy from the NC
> position. But I agree with Avri - revising spec 11 and the PIC
> policy should not require that delegation is frozen.
>
> >
>
> > I also think that while I do not agree with the policy
> position the BC are putting forth, I do think the NGPC simply
> ignoring a strong ALAC statement like that is something we should
> be considering very seriously. Consider the whole PIC mess is
> there in response to GAC concerns - but other ACs concerns about
> implementation can apparently be ignored with impunity of the
> board are not forced by regulation to care. If the NGPC can just
> ignore it, ALAC is effectively made totally irrelevant - is that
> what we want?
>
> >
>
> > Cheers
>
> >
>
> > David
>
> >
>
> > On 4 Dec 2014, at 1:27 am, Robin Gross
> <robin at ipjustice.org <mailto:robin at ipjustice.org>>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> 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 <mailto: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 <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
>
> >>>
>
> >>> _______________________________________________
>
> >>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>
> >>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto:PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org>
>
> >>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>
> >>
>
> >> _______________________________________________
>
> >> PC-NCSG mailing list
>
> >> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> <mailto: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
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJUf+PEAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqd4gIAJP5Badb3V+KgHcXZAtrfzzW
> GtxG9ewGLFYC7tJ3VRNEuk4vUPdjDYe7hSCjXSV/2GukZs3y+H6zTRgqX9r0B4mp
> fCNal/8coPLaVrRkiXDUxsF5/+p0+BVLsdiozIYGQLztd1zvEbaL27hQ7ZPFXYmw
> Ou8i1R0m8iiz+IrMs1EwKN7jw3bxcq+Gbt8lScVMOSAFNIBZkDg/WloUAE59yU7w
> EOSqwpnYOgQfq8XFZwDS0e2nqV0HN1FQ17MPlPXR2moBWg/m7iY2I89WC/K9uoYv
> TPYQwJwsoIwUodSf82jiDRr6u0zAAzcG52SoNPVAVkV32/O4Oy0oe9iBpdZKQmg=
> =n67N
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20141204/fdbd5625/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list