[PC-NCSG] Fwd: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings

[Avri Doria]

forwarded with permission

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings
Date: 	Wed, 5 Feb 2014 10:43:21 -0500
From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
To: 	<maria.farrell at gmail.com>, "'David Cake'" <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>,
<avri at acm.org>
CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>



Dear Maria,

Dear Avri,

Dear David,

Robin recently advised me that she is no longer on the NCSG Policy
Committee and that, in fact, the three of you are leading that effort.
For this reason I am contacting you today.

For the past several months, Marilyn Cade, Phil Corwin and I have been
briefing ICANN thought leaders and AC/C leadership teams about the
Policy Advisory Board (PAB) model that we have proposed to the
Government Advisory Committee (GAC) and the ICANN Board NGPC.   As you
know the GAC Beijing Communique
<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2> 

raised issues about a large number of applications for strings that are
associated with regulated industries.  The PAB model offers a path to
move many of these off of the sidetrack they are currently on back into
the path of delegation through the establishment of balanced and
globally representative bodies that will ensure such new gTLDs act ?
first and foremost ? in the public interest. For further background and
the full detail on the PAB model, here is a link to my November 2013
post on
CircleID:http://www.circleid.com/posts/20131104_policy_advisory_boards_cornerstone_pics_public_interest_commitment/.

We would be most grateful to have NCUC consider joining with us in
supporting this initiative to ensure that applicant PICS are indeed
established, as requested by the GAC. _Our last chance is now_.  The GAC
Buenos Aires Communique calls on the NGPC to provide ?/a briefing on
whether the Board considers that the existing PICS/ /(including 3c)
fully implements this advice.?/

We feel that adopting an approach such as the Policy Advisory Board
offers several benefits, and a path to address the concerns raised in
the GAC advice.

1.Policy Advisory Boards (PAB) as a PICS enforcement model:

?Mechanism for implementation of GAC safeguard advice for protecting
public interest

?Ensures separation of registry technical management and PAB-guided
policy for those new gTLDs related to sensitive industries and professions.

??One size does not fit all? ? the PAB proposed model is f_lexible  and
while it does not propose required participation_ of any specific
regulator, self-regulatory agency, or civil society entity, it is
intended to provide an open and balanced advisory body to all bona fide
parties

?PAB can address registrant eligibility criteria, registry policies, and
other relevant matters relating to safeguards implementation

?Represented groups can include accrediting organizations; experts &
advocates; safety/consumer coalitions & organizations; ?Internet
freedom? & human rights groups; Internet commerce experts; national &
global law enforcement entities

?In the case of managing government interests, including regulatory
entities, to participate on PABs, the TLD operator should propose an
approach to address engagement, either as members, or as observers, on
how interested governments to determine which would be the initial PAB
participants and which will rotate in each year

?2. PABs provide an extra layer of support for ICANN compliance due to
their intrinsic and inclusive nature:

?The PAB model meets the NGPC call for registries to provide a ?clear
pathway? for creation of a working relationship with relevant industry
regulatory or self-regulatory bodies

?Broadened pathway accommodates participation of relevant consumer
advocacy and other civil society groups

?Ensures that representatives of consumer end-users of goods and
services offered by registrants in regulated industry/profession gTLDs
also have appropriate input in framing registry policies

The PAB is consistent with new gTLD program goals of promoting
innovation and competition in a manner that benefits global Internet
user community, while also respecting that certain string applications
are associated with public interest responsibilities.  We present it as
a framework or model, which has the flexibility to be adapted to a
particular industry sector.

This past week, Marilyn, Olivier, Alan, Evan and I sent a follow on
letter to the NGPC Chair to further the cause
(https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en). 

We have been privately informed by a leading member of the GAC that
certain members of the NGPC view: /??the PAB model positively and that
it can certainly contribute to close a number of loopholes or gaps in
the current safeguards??/.

Yesterday, I received the attached letter from Christine Willett, so it
is clear that the fight for the public interest over the interests of
the ?New gTLD Customer Service? division of ICANN (as her email
remarkably was received from) is on.

Irrespective of the timing of Willett?s letter, we had been planning to
reach out to enroll you in this important initiative this week.  Now,
more than ever, it is evident that the NGPC and ICANN CEO are driven by
a desire to get to market with the new gLTDs and that they have no
desire to see public interest commitments holding things up.  However,
ICANN has to have a public interest accountability aspect or it has no
legitimacy.  We need to rapidly build broad community support if the
public interest is to prevail over portfolio gTLD applicant interests.

We welcome hearing your thoughts on this at your earliest convenience.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

*Ron Andruff*

*RNA Partners*

*www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 478623 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140205/a0df5819/attachment-0001.obj>