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

Thu Feb 6 03:35:21 EET 2014

I'm inclined to support. It will be unbalanced if we don't participate, for sure. But the PAB model looks to me to be one of the few suggestions that might make PICS actually have some meaningful public interest component, rather than just being a tick-list commitment of promising to do what the GAC (or those lobbying the GAC) said. 

And by being involved in the debate we can work to ensure that the PICS system has meaningful participation from regulators, policy experts, etc. 

David

On 6 Feb 2014, at 6:02 am, 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

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mailman.ipjustice.org/pipermail/pc-ncsg/attachments/20140206/39afcd21/attachment.sig>