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

Thu Feb 6 12:48:50 EET 2014

Hi,

I?m not as familiar with this topic as I probably need to be to give a well informed opinion, so here is my not-so-well informed one. This is a lot to take in, so please help me out if I?ve made mistaken assumptions.

I?ve tried to go through Ron?s letter to Cherine, the PICS in the Registry Agreement and the two GAC communiques coming out of Beijing and BA (I had gone through those before because of my personal interest in opinions regarding health-related new gTLD applications). The one thing that stands out to me, and made particularly clear in Ron?s letter, is that the GAC, ALAC and MC are very much in favour of regulatory authorities of different industries becoming involved in helping ICANN (via the PAB) reach conclusions on wether or not new gTLD applications meet subjective public interest criteria, or not. I say subjective, because it seems clear in the GAC communiqu? coming out of Beijing, that the GAC doesn?t see the PICS listed in the Registry Agreement to fulfil their own minimum standards of public interest. If these standards are left to or influenced by individual national regulators, then the recommendations may possibly have nothing to do with actual public interest?, even in its broadest definitions. Government-run sector regulators (in my personal experience) are politically motivated, and sometimes even dangerously corrupt.

ALAC have previously left me with the impression that they follow a principle of advocating for law enforcement and the Business Constituency has its traditional interests. This makes their affinity to team up with the GAC on this understandable, but I see no reason why we should view this proposal of a Policy Advisory Board to be advantageous to non-commercial domain name holders?, especially considering the proposed membership.

My take is let the BC make the case for the BC?s concerns, let ALAC make their own case, and if sector regulators have issues with public interest violation in the new gTLD program, then the GAC can take up those causes if it chooses to. There are already established procedures to raise objections based on public interest issues of new gTLD applications, and those have already seem to have been used. Is this whole issue about that the results of these procedures have not satisfied these folks?

I have been trying to establish an opinion on the objections to the applications for the gTLD .health. I?ve seen complaints on this by the GAC, ALAC, the World Health Organization and the International Medical Informatics Association - all based on the so-called ?public interest?. None of them have impressed me.

Finally?, is this really about domain names, or is what these folks are really trying to achieve is regulation of Web-content using domain names?? If this is true, then do we want to go down that road with them?? If this is really about PICS not working, then I have no objection to finding ways to make it work, but this proposal has just rubbed me the wrong way. I am more than willing to being corrected in my assumptions. Like I said, this is all new to me.

Thanks.

Amr

On Feb 6, 2014, at 9:03 AM, William Drake <wjdrake at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi
> 
> Interesting outreach.  What do we make of the motivations and potential impact?
> 
> Personally, not being a libertarian, I?m inclined to the think that there should be an effort to make PICS work, with assessments, before we just throw our hands up.  Whether the PAB the single best solution is another matter.
> 
> Would be interested in hearing from others.
> 
> Bill
> 
> On Feb 5, 2014, at 10:25 PM, Avri Doria <avri at ACM.ORG> 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> *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <Letter_from_Willett_to_Andruff_et_al.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> ***********************************************
> William J. Drake
> International Fellow & Lecturer
>  Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ
>  University of Zurich, Switzerland
> Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, 
>  ICANN, www.ncuc.org
> william.drake at uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake at gmail.com (lists),
>  www.williamdrake.org
> ***********************************************
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140206/b081cea7/attachment-0001.html>