Re: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Thanks. Convinced me. Avri Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device <div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> </div><div>Date:01/14/2016 5:59 PM (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> </div><div>Cc: </div><div>Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust" </div><div> </div> Fiona’s response, just in case she is unable to post to the list 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 From: <Alexander>, Fiona Alexander <falexander@ntia.doc.gov> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: RE: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust" Hi Becky In the drafting of the Affirmation of Commitments, NTIA’s intent was to ensure that consumer trust was considered as part of the new gTLD expansion process. It was not to broadly include consumer trust as an obligation of ICANN. If the community wants to have a discussion about consumer trust as a broad ICANN obligation, that is a community decision. The Affirmation of Commitments, though, should not be read or used to justify an expansion, if one is to take place. Please let me know if I can assist further. Fiona ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiona M. Alexander Associate Administrator for International Affairs National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (202) 482-1866 www.ntia.doc.gov From: Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:49 PM To: Alexander, Fiona Cc: Accountability Community Subject: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust" Fiona – I am hoping you can shed some light on ICANN’s obligations with respect to “consumer trust” under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC). Paragraph 3 of the AoC states that the 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, entitled “Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice,” obligates ICANN to “ensure” that “as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation.” It goes on to require ICANN to conduct specific reviews at specified intervals following the introduction of new gTLDs. In transposing ICANN’s AoC commitments into the ICANN Bylaws, the CCWG Proposal contemplates adding a Bylaws provision requiring the specific reviews called for in the AoC, including review of competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in relation to expansion of the gTLD space. Some members of the CCWG believe that this approach faithfully transposes the consumer trust obligations which are referenced in Paragraph 3 but explained in Paragraph 9.3 to apply exclusively to ICANN’s expansion of the TLD space. Other members of the CCWG interpret the AoC to obligate ICANN also to undertake a general role in promoting consumer trust “in the DNS marketplace.” It would be very helpful if you could help us understand the intent of the drafters with respect to ICANN’s “consumer trust” obligations ICANN under the Affirmation of Commitments. Many thanks on behalf of the CCWG, Becky Burr Rapporteur for Work Party 2 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
I also have to say that I find Fiona's words convincing. When a document (or any portion thereof) is ambiguous on its face, the intentions of the drafters are a key factor in clarifying the ambiguity. I consider the meaning and purpose of Section 3 to be clarified, and I withdraw my concerns about how Section 3 is being handled by the CCWG. To the extent anyone thinks this issue is (or rather, was) significant enough to derail the entire "AoC" Recommendation and postpone it to WS2, I submit that this is now a non-issue. Greg On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 PM, avri <avri@ella.com> wrote:
Thanks.
Convinced me.
Avri
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz> Date:01/14/2016 5:59 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Cc: Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Fiona’s response, just in case she is unable to post to the list
*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>
From: <Alexander>, Fiona Alexander <falexander@ntia.doc.gov> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org> Subject: RE: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Hi Becky
In the drafting of the Affirmation of Commitments, NTIA’s intent was to ensure that consumer trust was considered as part of the new gTLD expansion process. It was not to broadly include consumer trust as an obligation of ICANN. If the community wants to have a discussion about consumer trust as a broad ICANN obligation, that is a community decision. The Affirmation of Commitments, though, should not be read or used to justify an expansion, if one is to take place.
Please let me know if I can assist further.
Fiona
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona M. Alexander
Associate Administrator for International Affairs
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
(202) 482-1866
www.ntia.doc.gov
*From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>] *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:49 PM *To:* Alexander, Fiona *Cc:* Accountability Community *Subject:* Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Fiona –
I am hoping you can shed some light on ICANN’s obligations with respect to “consumer trust” under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC).
Paragraph 3 of the AoC states that the 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, entitled “Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice,” obligates ICANN to “ensure” that “as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation.” It goes on to require ICANN to conduct specific reviews at specified intervals following the introduction of new gTLDs.
In transposing ICANN’s AoC commitments into the ICANN Bylaws, the CCWG Proposal contemplates adding a Bylaws provision requiring the specific reviews called for in the AoC, including review of competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in relation to expansion of the gTLD space.
Some members of the CCWG believe that this approach faithfully transposes the consumer trust obligations which are referenced in Paragraph 3 but explained in Paragraph 9.3 to apply exclusively to ICANN’s expansion of the TLD space. Other members of the CCWG interpret the AoC to obligate ICANN also to undertake a general role in promoting consumer trust “in the DNS marketplace.”
It would be very helpful if you could help us understand the intent of the drafters with respect to ICANN’s “consumer trust” obligations ICANN under the Affirmation of Commitments.
Many thanks on behalf of the CCWG,
Becky Burr
Rapporteur for Work Party 2
*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
+ 1 On 15/01/2016 15:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
I also have to say that I find Fiona's words convincing. When a document (or any portion thereof) is ambiguous on its face, the intentions of the drafters are a key factor in clarifying the ambiguity. I consider the meaning and purpose of Section 3 to be clarified, and I withdraw my concerns about how Section 3 is being handled by the CCWG.
To the extent anyone thinks this issue is (or rather, was) significant enough to derail the entire "AoC" Recommendation and postpone it to WS2, I submit that this is now a non-issue.
Greg
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 PM, avri <avri@ella.com <mailto:avri@ella.com>> wrote:
Thanks.
Convinced me.
Avri
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
-------- Original message -------- From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr@neustar.biz <mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz>> Date:01/14/2016 5:59 PM (GMT-05:00) To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Cc: Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Fiona’s response, just in case she is unable to post to the list
*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>
From: <Alexander>, Fiona Alexander <falexander@ntia.doc.gov <mailto:falexander@ntia.doc.gov>> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM To: Becky Burr <becky.burr@neustar.biz <mailto:becky.burr@neustar.biz>> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community@icann.org <mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: RE: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Hi Becky
In the drafting of the Affirmation of Commitments, NTIA’s intent was to ensure that consumer trust was considered as part of the new gTLD expansion process. It was not to broadly include consumer trust as an obligation of ICANN. If the community wants to have a discussion about consumer trust as a broad ICANN obligation, that is a community decision. The Affirmation of Commitments, though, should not be read or used to justify an expansion, if one is to take place.
Please let me know if I can assist further.
Fiona
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona M. Alexander
Associate Administrator for International Affairs
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
(202) 482-1866 <tel:%28202%29%20482-1866>
www.ntia.doc.gov <http://www.ntia.doc.gov>
*From:*Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr@neustar.biz] *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:49 PM *To:* Alexander, Fiona *Cc:* Accountability Community *Subject:* Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
Fiona –
I am hoping you can shed some light on ICANN’s obligations with respect to “consumer trust” under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC).
Paragraph 3 of the AoC states that the 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, entitled “Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice,” obligates ICANN to “ensure” that “as it contemplates expanding the top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will be adequately addressed prior to implementation.” It goes on to require ICANN to conduct specific reviews at specified intervals following the introduction of new gTLDs.
In transposing ICANN’s AoC commitments into the ICANN Bylaws, the CCWG Proposal contemplates adding a Bylaws provision requiring the specific reviews called for in the AoC, including review of competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in relation to expansion of the gTLD space.
Some members of the CCWG believe that this approach faithfully transposes the consumer trust obligations which are referenced in Paragraph 3 but explained in Paragraph 9.3 to apply exclusively to ICANN’s expansion of the TLD space. Other members of the CCWG interpret the AoC to obligate ICANN also to undertake a general role in promoting consumer trust “in the DNS marketplace.”
It would be very helpful if you could help us understand the intent of the drafters with respect to ICANN’s “consumer trust” obligations ICANN under the Affirmation of Commitments.
Many thanks on behalf of the CCWG,
Becky Burr
Rapporteur for Work Party 2
*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
_______________________________________________ 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 15/01/2016 15:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
I also have to say that I find Fiona's words convincing. When a document (or any portion thereof) is ambiguous on its face, the intentions of the drafters are a key factor in clarifying the ambiguity. I consider the meaning and purpose of Section 3 to be clarified, and I withdraw my concerns about how Section 3 is being handled by the CCWG.
To the extent anyone thinks this issue is (or rather, was) significant enough to derail the entire "AoC" Recommendation and postpone it to WS2, I submit that this is now a non-issue.
Yes, Fiona makes entirely clear that add "consumer trust" to the general Mission, without specifically limiting it the new gTLD, cannot be justified as an implementation of the AoC. Since we were only considering AoC implementation and not general extensions of the Mission, this proposal is now dead, not only for now but also for WS2, I quite agree. Malcolm. -- 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
I would disagree with the implication that any implementation or consideration of "consumer trust" beyond new gTLDs is an "extension of the Mission." That said, I also would not put it into WS2. I would let the CCT review team do its work first. After that, we will have much more discussion, experience, information and application relating to "consumer trust" and how it fits into the Mission of ICANN (albeit in the context of the new gTLDs. That will provide a much more fruitful and pragmatic basis for a future discussion, regardless of one's present presumption about how such a discussion should turn out. Greg On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net> wrote:
On 15/01/2016 15:27, Greg Shatan wrote:
I also have to say that I find Fiona's words convincing. When a document (or any portion thereof) is ambiguous on its face, the intentions of the drafters are a key factor in clarifying the ambiguity. I consider the meaning and purpose of Section 3 to be clarified, and I withdraw my concerns about how Section 3 is being handled by the CCWG.
To the extent anyone thinks this issue is (or rather, was) significant enough to derail the entire "AoC" Recommendation and postpone it to WS2, I submit that this is now a non-issue.
Yes, Fiona makes entirely clear that add "consumer trust" to the general Mission, without specifically limiting it the new gTLD, cannot be justified as an implementation of the AoC.
Since we were only considering AoC implementation and not general extensions of the Mission, this proposal is now dead, not only for now but also for WS2, I quite agree.
Malcolm.
-- 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
+1 On 15-Jan-16 12:13, Greg Shatan wrote:
I would disagree with the implication that any implementation or consideration of "consumer trust" beyond new gTLDs is an "extension of the Mission."
That said, I also would not put it into WS2. I would let the CCT review team do its work first. After that, we will have much more discussion, experience, information and application relating to "consumer trust" and how it fits into the Mission of ICANN (albeit in the context of the new gTLDs. That will provide a much more fruitful and pragmatic basis for a future discussion, regardless of one's present presumption about how such a discussion should turn out.
Greg
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Malcolm Hutty <malcolm@linx.net <mailto:malcolm@linx.net>> wrote:
On 15/01/2016 15:27, Greg Shatan wrote: > I also have to say that I find Fiona's words convincing. When a > document (or any portion thereof) is ambiguous on its face, the > intentions of the drafters are a key factor in clarifying the > ambiguity. I consider the meaning and purpose of Section 3 to be > clarified, and I withdraw my concerns about how Section 3 is being > handled by the CCWG. > > To the extent anyone thinks this issue is (or rather, was) significant > enough to derail the entire "AoC" Recommendation and postpone it to WS2, > I submit that this is now a non-issue.
Yes, Fiona makes entirely clear that add "consumer trust" to the general Mission, without specifically limiting it the new gTLD, cannot be justified as an implementation of the AoC.
Since we were only considering AoC implementation and not general extensions of the Mission, this proposal is now dead, not only for now but also for WS2, I quite agree.
Malcolm.
-- Malcolm Hutty | tel: +44 20 7645 3523 <tel:%2B44%2020%207645%203523> 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
--- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Actually, I agree. Clearly some interpretations would be, but not others. I spoke too hastily. Sent from my iPhone
On 15 Jan 2016, at 17:13, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I would disagree with the implication that any implementation or consideration of "consumer trust" beyond new gTLDs is an "extension of the Mission."
participants (5)
-
avri -
Avri Doria
-
Greg Shatan -
Malcolm Hutty -
Matthew Shears