"Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
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 trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….” Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: … If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>
Dear Becky, thank you for starting this thread. I took the liberty to copy the newly created CCT review tema list. I think you have framed the question right: does it requiere this level of relevance? Personally have my problems with the "Consumer Trust" part. While more choice and fair competition are terms I can readily convert in economic terms, and there is a longstanding analytical framework for calculating consumer welfare ( in which more choice may or may NOT be based on more or less competition), Consumer Trust is not traditionally considered in the same framework. Some may add that what economist like to call Consumer Welfare is not even a tangible benefit to Consumers anyhow. So the point I want to convey is that in any case, if we are talking at the highest level of principles, may the CCWG ACCt consider at least separating for the purposes of Monday´s discussion "Consumer Trust" on the one hand, from the more easily *measurable* Competition and Consumer Choice in economic terms. After separating those to issues, I would suggest that if *expansion* of the DNS is going to be a permanent objective, then care should be spent in guaranteeing that it results in more choice and fair competition. Not sure if it qualifies as a highest level principle for ICANN though, because as long as we are in the US private sector, those objectives are guaranteed by Antitrust and Consumer Protection law. No clue or opinion about how to handle Consumer Trust at a principle level, since the actual trend is for the DNS to become a Wholesale market, far away from consumer that make addressing requests based on search engines and mobile apps. This difference is already obvious from the separation of the Nilsen studies between the *wholesale* (Registrant https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-25-en) and the *retail* (consumer https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-29-en) parts of the markets. Wish you all a nice weekend and I will try to connect on Monday. *Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez* +506 8837 7176 Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 *COSTA RICA* On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> 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 trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….” * Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: … If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will 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 *Mobile:* +1.202.352.6367 */* *neustar.biz* <http://www.neustar.biz>
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Well, not to go off on a tangent here but it’s important to recognize that these surveys are meant to be baselines for which there will be corresponding surveys a year later so it’s a little so soon to suggest that the new gTLD program is only for the wholesale market. Further, I’m not of a mind that consumer trust isn’t something we should strive for or attempt to measure (hence the surveys and others data being collected) despite the difficulty. If we undermine trust in the DNS through our activities we have failed at our expansionist mission as well. That said, I’m wary to putting too much stuff in the core principles though perfectly happy with it as a bylaws objective associated with portions of ICANN’s mission so it’s not engaging in one activity at the expense of the actual justification of the activity. ;) From: <cct-review-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cct-review-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Carlos Raul via CCT-Review <cct-review@icann.org<mailto:cct-review@icann.org>> Reply-To: Carlos Raul <carlosraulg@gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg@gmail.com>> Date: Friday, January 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: "cct-review@icann.org<mailto:cct-review@icann.org>" <cct-review@icann.org<mailto:cct-review@icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCT-Review] [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement Dear Becky, thank you for starting this thread. I took the liberty to copy the newly created CCT review tema list. I think you have framed the question right: does it requiere this level of relevance? Personally have my problems with the "Consumer Trust" part. While more choice and fair competition are terms I can readily convert in economic terms, and there is a longstanding analytical framework for calculating consumer welfare ( in which more choice may or may NOT be based on more or less competition), Consumer Trust is not traditionally considered in the same framework. Some may add that what economist like to call Consumer Welfare is not even a tangible benefit to Consumers anyhow. So the point I want to convey is that in any case, if we are talking at the highest level of principles, may the CCWG ACCt consider at least separating for the purposes of Monday´s discussion "Consumer Trust" on the one hand, from the more easily measurable Competition and Consumer Choice in economic terms. After separating those to issues, I would suggest that if expansion of the DNS is going to be a permanent objective, then care should be spent in guaranteeing that it results in more choice and fair competition. Not sure if it qualifies as a highest level principle for ICANN though, because as long as we are in the US private sector, those objectives are guaranteed by Antitrust and Consumer Protection law. No clue or opinion about how to handle Consumer Trust at a principle level, since the actual trend is for the DNS to become a Wholesale market, far away from consumer that make addressing requests based on search engines and mobile apps. This difference is already obvious from the separation of the Nilsen studies between the wholesale (Registrant https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-25-en) and the retail (consumer https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-29-en) parts of the markets. Wish you all a nice weekend and I will try to connect on Monday. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez +506 8837 7176 Skype carlos.raulg _________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> 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 trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….” Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: … If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will 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
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 trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace . Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will 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 ICANNs 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / <http://www.neustar.biz>neustar.biz _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 book (Jefferson's Moose) http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic publications etc. http://www.davidpost.com *******************************
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>:
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 trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….” Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: … If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will 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 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz <http://www.neustar.biz> _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list 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 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
On 08/01/2016 21:10, Burr, Becky wrote:
*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?
I don't understand this question, generally. Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust". Indeed, if I recally correctly, lack of clarity about the meaning of the term "consumer trust" was why we didn't include it back in our original proposal (Drafts 1 and 2); I don't think it was an inadvertent omission.
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?
I think so, for meanings of "consumer trust" that I would support. -- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 Head of Public Affairs | Read the LINX Public Affairs blog London Internet Exchange | http://publicaffairs.linx.net/ London Internet Exchange Ltd Monument Place, 24 Monument Street, London EC3R 8AJ Company Registered in England No. 3137929 Trinity Court, Trinity Street, Peterborough PE1 1DA
Hello Malcolm,
Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
It is a general term like human rights and public interest. I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission. If we are talking about domain names it could be that: - a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet (the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that) - there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name (the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that) What it should not be in my personal view: - anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name - anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name Regards, Bruce Tonkin
The definition of 'consumer' in this is problematic. In EU legislation it generally excludes businesses. A common understanding would be a 'natural person acting outside the scope of an economic activity'. On 01/09/2016 09:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
It is a general term like human rights and public interest.
I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission.
If we are talking about domain names it could be that:
- a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet
(the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that)
- there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name
(the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that)
What it should not be in my personal view:
- anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name
- anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
"Furthermore,under EU law, the notion of consumer does not extend to legal persons, even if they have a non-business character (e.g. non-profit associations). The Court of Justice has consis- tently held that EU definitions of consumer must not be given a wider interpretation." On 01/09/2016 10:30 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The definition of 'consumer' in this is problematic.
In EU legislation it generally excludes businesses. A common understanding would be a 'natural person acting outside the scope of an economic activity'.
On 01/09/2016 09:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
It is a general term like human rights and public interest.
I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission.
If we are talking about domain names it could be that:
- a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet
(the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that)
- there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name
(the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that)
What it should not be in my personal view:
- anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name
- anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
Please see these working definitions of ‘Consumer' and 'Consumer Trust', from the 2012 Working Group that defined measures and metrics for the AoC Review of the 2012 gTLD expansion (<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-31oct12-en.pdf>link<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> to WG report, page 5): Consumer is defined as actual and potential Internet users and registrants. Consumer Trust is defined as the confidence Consumers have in the domain name system. This includes (i) trust in the consistency of name resolution (ii) confidence that a TLD registry operator is fulfilling the Registry’s stated purpose and is complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws and (iii) confidence in ICANN’s compliance function. Consumer Choice is defined as the range of options available to Consumers for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs that offer meaningful choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their domain name registrants. Competition is defined as the quantity, diversity, and the potential for and actual market rivalry of TLDs, TLD registry operators, and registrars. That WG was created per a Dec-2010 Board resolution (link<http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS in preparation for the AoC required review of the 2012 gTLD expansion. The WG's final report<http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> was adopted by its chartering organizations, GNSO and ALAC, with ALAC adding several additional measures. I believe these definitions are appropriate and workable for purposes of reviewing ICANN’s remit in expanding the gLTD space. They aren’t universal definitions to apply for everything ICANN does, but From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net<mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> Date: Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement "Furthermore,under EU law, the notion of consumer does not extend to legal persons, even if they have a non-business character (e.g. non-profit associations). The Court of Justice has consis- tently held that EU definitions of consumer must not be given a wider interpretation." On 01/09/2016 10:30 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote: The definition of 'consumer' in this is problematic. In EU legislation it generally excludes businesses. A common understanding would be a 'natural person acting outside the scope of an economic activity'. On 01/09/2016 09:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote: Hello Malcolm, Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust". It is a general term like human rights and public interest. I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission. If we are talking about domain names it could be that: - a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet (the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that) - there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name (the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that) What it should not be in my personal view: - anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name - anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name Regards, Bruce Tonkin _______________________________________________ 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<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
I have to take issue with the formulation of the first question. The commitment* in paragraph 3 of the AoC to "*(c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….” *is not "an AoC provision specific to TLD expansion." Paragraph 9.3 may be "an AoC provision specific to TLD expansion" but 9.3 is just a specific application of the more fundamental commitment in paragraph 3. So the contention that an expansion-specific provision is being "leveraged" is both incorrect and somewhat leading: if "leveraging" is a bad thing (and it seems to be used in a negative sense here, akin to "bootstrapping"), then who would answer yes? In any event, we should not be cherry-picking the AoC here. "Consumer trust" is an integral part of those commitments. We should not eviscerate this commitment. I concur with Bruce and Steve's emails regarding the attempts to raise definitional issues. Whether the EU, for its purposes and in different contexts, defines consumer differently is neither relevant nor problematic for ICANN's commitment here. Greg _____ * I certainly read this as a commitment, and not merely some sort of nebulous "goal". As such, I guess I do disagree with Becky's opinion on this (and also disagree that Becky's opinion is a fact (I often agree with Becky's opinions, which are well-informed and well-considered, but even the ones I agree with aren't facts.).) On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 10:07 AM, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@netchoice.org> wrote:
Please see these working definitions of ‘Consumer' and 'Consumer Trust', from the 2012 Working Group that defined measures and metrics for the AoC Review of the 2012 gTLD expansion ( <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-31oct12-en.pdf> link <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> to WG report, page 5):
*Consumer* is defined as actual and potential Internet users and registrants.
*Consumer Trust* is defined as the confidence Consumers have in the domain name system. This includes
(i) trust in the consistency of name resolution (ii) confidence that a TLD registry operator is fulfilling the Registry’s stated purpose and is complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws and (iii) confidence in ICANN’s compliance function.
*Consumer Choice* is defined as the range of options available to Consumers for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs that offer meaningful choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their domain name registrants.
*Competition* is defined as the quantity, diversity, and the potential for and actual market rivalry of TLDs, TLD registry operators, and registrars.
That WG was created per a Dec-2010 Board resolution (link <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS in preparation for the AoC required review of the 2012 gTLD expansion.
The WG's final report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> was adopted by its chartering organizations, GNSO and ALAC, with ALAC adding several additional measures.
I believe these definitions are appropriate and workable for purposes of reviewing ICANN’s remit in expanding the gLTD space. They aren’t universal definitions to apply for everything ICANN does, but
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net> Date: Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org" < accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
"Furthermore,under EU law, the notion of consumer does not extend to legal persons, even if they have a non-business character (e.g. non-profit associations).
The Court of Justice has consis- tently held that EU definitions of consumer must not be given a wider interpretation."
On 01/09/2016 10:30 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The definition of 'consumer' in this is problematic.
In EU legislation it generally excludes businesses. A common understanding would be a 'natural person acting outside the scope of an economic activity'.
On 01/09/2016 09:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
It is a general term like human rights and public interest.
I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission.
If we are talking about domain names it could be that:
- a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet
(the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that)
- there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name
(the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that)
What it should not be in my personal view:
- anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name
- anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
In any event, we should not be cherry-picking the AoC here. "Consumer trust" is an integral part of those commitments. We should not eviscerate this commitment.
Greg Please not underestimate the difficulty of re-purposing legal terms which have a defined meaning in 27 Countries. For example, in many ccTLDs there is specific language in the Registration Agreement relating to consumers (and by implication consumer trust). Section 1 of the Nominet Registrant Agreement, for example, states ‘consumer' – You are a consumer if you are an individual not registering, using or planning to use the domain name as part of a business, trade or profession. This corresponds to the legal definition. This is really important as it affects consumer rights, and consumer trust throughout the Single Market, and IN PARTICULAR data privacy rights over WHOIS. (I still find it curious that the ICANN community think that its policy development supersedes directly applicable legislation.)
Thanks Steve - if there is agreement that these are suitable definitions perhaps we can have the report refer to them so as to avoid confusion as to scope, etc. On 10/01/2016 15:07, Steve DelBianco wrote:
Please see these working definitions of ‘Consumer' and 'Consumer Trust', from the 2012 Working Group that defined measures and metrics for the AoC Review of the 2012 gTLD expansion (link <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> to WG report, page 5):
*Consumer* is defined as actual and potential Internet users and registrants.
*Consumer Trust* is defined as the confidence Consumers have in the domain name system. This includes
(i) trust in the consistency of name resolution (ii) confidence that a TLD registry operator is fulfilling the Registry’s stated purpose and is complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws and (iii) confidence in ICANN’s compliance function.
*Consumer Choice* is defined as the range of options available to Consumers for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs that offer meaningful choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their domain name registrants.
*Competition* is defined as the quantity, diversity, and the potential for and actual market rivalry of TLDs, TLD registry operators, and registrars.
That WG was created per a Dec-2010 Board resolution (link <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS in preparation for the AoC required review of the 2012 gTLD expansion. The WG's final report <http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/cctc/cctc-final-advice-letter-05dec12-en.pdf> was adopted by its chartering organizations, GNSO and ALAC, with ALAC adding several additional measures.
I believe these definitions are appropriate and workable for purposes of reviewing ICANN’s remit in expanding the gLTD space. They aren’t universal definitions to apply for everything ICANN does, but
From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Nigel Roberts <nigel@channelisles.net <mailto:nigel@channelisles.net>> Date: Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 3:32 PM To: "accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
"Furthermore,under EU law, the notion of consumer does not extend to legal persons, even if they have a non-business character (e.g. non-profit associations).
The Court of Justice has consis- tently held that EU definitions of consumer must not be given a wider interpretation."
On 01/09/2016 10:30 PM, Nigel Roberts wrote:
The definition of 'consumer' in this is problematic.
In EU legislation it generally excludes businesses. A common understanding would be a 'natural person acting outside the scope of an economic activity'.
On 01/09/2016 09:56 PM, Bruce Tonkin wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
It is a general term like human rights and public interest.
I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission.
If we are talking about domain names it could be that:
- a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet
(the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that)
- there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name
(the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that)
What it should not be in my personal view:
- anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name
- anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ 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 <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
-- Matthew Shears Director - Global Internet Policy and Human Rights Center for Democracy & Technology mshears@cdt.org + 44 771 247 2987 --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
On 9 Jan 2016, at 21:56, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
Hello Malcolm,
Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
It is a general term like human rights and public interest.
That's what worries me: these general terms are too slippery, and need to be applied specifically to the ICANN context. As the Board itself has said in respect of "human rights".
I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission.
If we are talking about domain names it could be that:
- a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet
(the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that)
- there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the domain name
(the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that)
What it should not be in my personal view:
- anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name
- anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name
I agree that the above reflects how consumer trust should be understood in the ICANN context. But I am worried that if we include the term, it could be interpreted to mean the things that you say (and I agree) it should not mean. In particular I do not think the necessary purpose of the DNS is to generate consumer trust by acting as a quality accreditation mark for the services that the DNS supports. That does not mean the DNS cannot be used in that fashion in specific cases: many .brand TLDs exist for precisely that reason, as well as highly regulated generics. But that is specific to the business model for a particular TLD and its registry: it is not for ICANN to impose on all registries a requirement to vet and accredit their users (and inevitably, as a consequence, to impose standards for what vetting they need to perform). I am worried that the inclusion of this term would be used to try to force ICANN to develop such a policy, rather than respecting diversity between domains. Also, I can't think of anything that ICANN does in respect of numbers or protocols where consumer trust issues are directly invoked. Can you? Malcolm.
Regards, Bruce Tonkin
_______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
participants (11)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Burr, Becky -
Carlos Raul -
David Post -
Greg Shatan -
Jonathan Zuck -
Kavouss Arasteh -
Malcolm Hutty -
Matthew Shears -
Nigel Roberts -
Steve DelBianco