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

Thu Feb 6 00:02:40 EET 2014

Disinclined to support.  "Balanced"?

--Wendy

On 02/05/2014 04:25 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 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> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/