Makes sense. Great that you caught the omission. avri On 09-Jan-16 14:53, Alan Greenberg wrote:
Before my substantive reply to this thread, I note that the text on the AoC Review on Promoting Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice (CCTCC) seems to have been omitted from Annex 9 (between the SSR review starting at para 98 and the Whois review starting at para 112 (which should be in bold), jumping from Review 2 to Review 4). Since no one seems to have noticed, I have to wonder what else was lost in this revision?
If the text for this review had been there, it would have said (taken from the 2nd draft proposal)
"566 ICANN will ensure that as it expands the Top-Level Domain (TLD) space, it will adequately address issues of competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection."
and
"569 This Review will examine the extent to which the expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice, as well as effectiveness of:"
Clearly this review is focused on the EXPANSION of the namespace. However, the vast percentage of names in use now and probably for the foreseeable future are not associated with the expansion. Omitting the issue from the core serves to disenfranchise the consumers who use those names (that is, the bulk of all Internet use).
I agree with those who say that the term may be hard to define, quantify and measure. That is true with many things we value in life. But it does make them less important. Regardless, the term is used twice in the Whois Review section of the proposed Bylaws as well as in the missing CCTCC section. The lack of a definition does not preclude its use there and certainly we cannot omit the expression in a wholesale manner because of the lack of a definition or metrics.
We have said that much of what we are doing in in this CCWG is not to control the current Board or management, but to ensure that as time goes forward, we can ensure that veer off course. This is exactly such a situation. The formal Mission of Contractual Compliance is "To preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name System and to promote consumer trust." (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en>). In the past, Compliance has been accused of only enforcing certain aspects of its contracts and specifically not the parts that would often impact consumers (such as Whois issues and issues related to improper domain name transfers or hijacking). Thankfully that is no longer the case, but we need to ensure that the "bad old times" do not return. Capturing the concept of consumer trust in ICANN's mission is exactly how we can do so. The Contractual Compliance mission statement can be changed at will with no notice or community consultation. Embedding the concept in ICANN's mission provides the protection that is needed.
Alan
At 09/01/2016 12:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
Steve, I tend to agree with Malcolm in saying that whenever, we do not have a xclear definition nor a descrition for an item what is the usefulness of its inclusion in BYLAWS ? The difficulties that I have is , we may include many thing in the Mission and/or Bylaws, but when ICANN wants / required to implement that it would face difficulties to do so. Even if ICANN claims that it has had implemented, it is difficult to check the validity of that claim. Regards Kavouss
2016-01-09 14:16 GMT+01:00 David Post <david.g.post@gmail.com <mailto:david.g.post@gmail.com> >:
I do not think that the addition of this language is a good idea. Lengthening the list of 'values' and 'commitments' that ICANN is supposed to implement will inevitably weaken the Mission Statement. The more the document suggests that it is ICANN's job to balance a wide variety of different concerns - enhancing competition and consumer choice, supporting geographic and cultural diversity, promoting human rights and the global public interest - the easier it becomes for ICANN to justify pretty much anything it might do in the future as promoting one or another of these broad goals. The point that Andrew Sullivan made recently in connection with the discussions about the GPI is applicable here, I think:
"ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed functions. It should not go adventuring out into global governance issues that distract from that narrow set of responsibilities. And it should not embrace language that distracts from the narrow responsibilities -- lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages people to think ICANN has power it never has had"
David
At 04:10 PM 1/8/2016, Burr, Becky wrote:
As discussed in our call yesterday, we would like to get some discussion started on some of the issues with the Mission Statement, Commitments & Core Values elements of the CCWG Proposal. One of those issues relates to the inclusion of the concept of promoting “consumer trust” in the Commitments and/or Core Values. The USCIB comment, for example, urged inclusion of a Commitment/Core Value of “promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace.” ALAC urged inclusion of the consumer trust language. This is the topic we will discuss on Monday, during the Ad Hoc meeting just announced. Feel free to contribute your views in this thread, particularly if you are not going to be able to participate on Monday. ISSUE: Paragraph 3 of the Affirmation of Commitments describes the goals of the AoC, saying:
"This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: � (c) promote competition, consumer ttrust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace�.” Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: � If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII oor other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANNwill organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice �. >ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every four years.
In the Initial Draft Proposal, this AoC language was transposed into the Core Values by requiring ICANN to depend “on market mechanisms to proote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market that enhances consumer trust and choice.” (Para 107, page 27 Initial Draft Proposal) In the 2nd Draft Proposal we elected to delete the reference to consumer trust in the Mission statement and include it in the Review section of the Bylaws (See 3rd Report, Appendix 9, Para. 33). The reason we agreed to make this switch was because it is not a standalone ICANN commitment in the AoC, rather, it is specifically tied to new gTLD expansion and specifically tied to a required review. Several commenters in both the 2nd and 3rd comment round argued that the Core Values should specifically call out consumer trust. Some have disputed my characterization of Paragraph 3 of the AoC (i.e., it states the goals of the AoC but does not recite a specific commitment), on the grounds that my characterization is an opinion and not a fact. QUESTIONS: Should an AoC provision specific to TLD expansion be leveraged to impose generalized, independent, and affirmative competition and consumer trust protection obligations on ICANN? Does ICANN’s fundamental Mission to ensure “stable and secure operation” of the DNS, and its various Commitments (i.e., to use processes that enable competition, and to preserve stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness) adequately address this concern?
J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932> Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
******************************* David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post> book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0> music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com <??> *******************************
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org <mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus