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

Thu Feb 6 03:06:36 EET 2014

where I come from, balanced means a matrix with fixed numbers, eg. 25% civil society, 25% academia and unions etc. 25% business 25% govt.  However that does not seem to be the definition at ICANN?.
It could work but what is the alternative??
cheers Steph
PS who is WIllett?
On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:02 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com> wrote:

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