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

David Cake dave
Mon Feb 10 06:59:06 EET 2014 

On 8 Feb 2014, at 8:21 am, Stephanie Perrin <stephanie.perrin at MAIL.UTORONTO.CA> wrote:

> Thanks.  I find myself wanting more data on this. Here are my thoughts. 
> 1.  I am inclined to agree with Bill.  I think it is be there or be square.

	I think so. This debate it happening. The GAC are talking nonsense, and the commercial interests are doing whatever is the quickest route to approval of their gTLDs. 

> 2.  I also agree with Wendy, it is a serious incursion into discussion of content.  But we jumped off that bridge a while ago, when they opened up all these gtlds right?  It is time to swim ashore, as it were. 

	Absolutely. Once the PIC issue came in, content is there. And we need to drag the whole issue back into the realm of sense. 

> 3.  You want a fixed fair number of reps if you go for it, plus funding.  No way I am volunteering to figure out policy stuff for companies making a zillion dollars off these registrations, and paying for the privilege out of my meagre pension.  Just sayin. 

	Yes. Once PABs become common, they should be paying for it. 
	
> 4.  You want to control the process for selecting Civil Society reps or you don't know who is there.  

	I don't think that we necessarily need to have any say on who sits on a specific PAB (they are, after all, essentially there to support private commercial new gTLD projects), but we there should be mechanisms to ensure that civil society representatives are genuine. 

	David

> 5.  Bandwidth is a big issue.  and dealing in these kind of fora usually calls for extreme toughness, in my experience.  But you have been at ICANN for years and you know that.  problem is, because of 2, whoever is on this committee will have to keep the lines very clear, and drag government into doing its regulatory chores. 
> 6.  My sense is you (we) should ask for a conference call to get more info, lets not get railroaded.  But I think it could be helpful.  
> I am happy to reach out and ask for 6, and for all the briefing material we might not have seen yet, if you agree. 
> cheers steph
> On 2014-02-07, at 6:23 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 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> *
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> PC-NCSG mailing list
>> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
>> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> PC-NCSG at ipjustice.org
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg

More information about the NCSG-PC mailing list