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

[Avri Doria]

Further fodder for thought.

(btw, as someone with a conflict of interest on the whole string 
contention issue due to a part time contract, I am not contributing to 
the discussion. at least not as long as i am playing atl-chair.)

avri


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	RE: Follow Up: Policy Advisory Board Model for
Regulated/Sensitive Strings
Date: 	Fri, 7 Feb 2014 17:04:38 -0500
From: 	Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
To: 	'Avri Doria' <avri at acm.org>, <maria.farrell at gmail.com>, 'David
Cake' <dave at DIFFERENCE.COM.AU>
CC: 	<robin at ipjustice.org>, "'Olivier Crepin-Leblond'" <ocl at gih.com>



Dear all,

ICANN is moving at speeds I have not experienced before, quite
literally.  Christine Willett?s response to our letter to Cherine has
been posted here:
http://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/willett-to-andruff-et-al-04feb14-en.pdf

This morning, on a call with the ALAC leadership, we discussed our
response to Willett?s letter and a going-forward strategy that we would
like to share with the NCUC policy committee.

Below, please find the first draft of the key issues we have identified
as critical in the discussions with the NGPC, the GAC, and
constituencies/SOs regarding the Policy Advisory Board model:

?_Regulated industries and professions have inherent public interest and
consumer protection concerns_that are recognized by local, state,
federal, and in some cases, international government agreements. They
are unique from other industries and professions in that regard.  In the
world of the Internet these same regulated industries and professions
have the same inherent public interests/consumer protection issues, yet
ICANN is turning a blind eye to ensuring that appropriate safeguards are
included in the new gTLD program.

?The public interest concerns that civil society, consumer activists,
and governments share call for appropriate measures to protect the
public. _ICANN is solely positioned to meet these regulated
industry/profession cross-border responsibilities_. Failure of ICANN to
require strong and enforceable restrictions on registrant eligibility
and other such policies in new gTLDs associated with regulated
industries (that assure bona fide products and services and inhibit
anti-competitive practices) will shift the burden of addressing these
concerns from ICANN registries to national consumer protection and
competition authorities. This will have severe consequences. _ICANN
cannot ignore its responsibility and knowingly place such burdens on
governments_ in an era of constrained public resources, particularly
when such problems can be mitigated through ICANN ensuring responsible
actions are undertaken by regulated industry TLD registry operators.
Creating a Policy Advisory Board approach with accountability will
require only modest cost and administrative burdens on regulated
industry registries, which have complete control of their domain pricing.

?The _PICS that have been submitted in response to the GAC?s call for
them, remain, for the most part, wholly inadequate_, as illustrated by
those filed by the leading ?portfolio? applicant. [example]  ICANN?s
legitimacy, measured through its accountability and whether it is
fulfilling its public interest responsibility, is under attack; _ICANN
cannot lead a credible defense of the multistakeholder model when ? at
the same time ? it roundly ignores the concerns of key stakeholder
groups, including governments_, as expressed via the GAC.  ICANN?s
reputation and credibility will be irreparably harmed if it fails to
address appropriate safeguards such as the PAB model and the result is
mass registration of regulated sector domains by entities engaging in
fraudulent, deceptive, or malicious practices.

?This issue is _NOT about anti-commercialism_; rather it is about
creating certain limits for regulated industry new gTLD applicants
focused on protecting the public impact. While no one wants to see any
delays in the continued roll out of new gTLDs, _ICANN must work together
with the community toward establishing adequate safeguards for regulated
industry gTLDs - this must be the overriding principle_ if ICANN is to
maintain its rightful place as chief steward of the Internet.
Commercial interests cannot be allowed to trump public interests and
consumer protections.

I?d be grateful to get your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Thanks for your consideration.

Kind regards,

RA

*Ron Andruff*

*RNA Partners*

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

*From:*Avri Doria [mailto:avri at acm.org]
*Sent:* Wednesday, February 5, 2014 11:01
*To:* Ron Andruff; maria.farrell at gmail.com; 'David Cake'
*Cc:* robin at ipjustice.org; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
*Subject:* Re: Policy Advisory Board Model for Regulated/Sensitive Strings

Hi Ron,

Thanks for your note.

Quick question, any objection to my forwarding this to the full policy
committee?

avri
Alt Chair NCSG-PC for another week.

On 05-Feb-14 10:43, Ron Andruff wrote:

     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> *