Hello all, The notes, recordings and transcripts for CCWG Ad Hoc Meeting, "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement held 11 January will be available here: https://community.icann.org/x/EKpYAw A copy of the notes may be found below. Thank you. Kind regards, Brenda Notes These high-level notes are designed to help you navigate through content of the call and do not substitute in any way the transcript. BBurr - History of this language. Was included in two place in Version 1 of the draft. Version 2 draft brought questioning if this was appropriate. Decision was made to take it out of the mission (given it was judged to be more about new gTLDs) and left in the review. ALAC and USCIB commented it should be re-inserted. Given this language in the original AOC was meant to focus on new gTLDs? given there is language which addresses this in other areas. There was also comment from the govt of the UK of this vs security and stability concerns. AGreenberg - Annex 9 omitted the discussion on consumer trust in the Bylaws. If the Bylaws covered this properly we would not be having this discussion. Given many people believe that the AOC commitment only applies to new gTLDs - if this is the case then according to ALAC it needs to be included regardless even if the definition of consumer trust is still un-agreed. MMueller - As to the first question the answer is no and the second with a yes. The second question is the source of my concern - once you remove this notion from the new gTLDs it then makes ICANN a consumer protection body. This would replace national regulatory orgs. responsibilities in this area which seems inappropriate. This change would be inconsistent with a tight mission. KArasteh - Mission needs to be precise and concise. Is this about where we put it or how we implemented. I prefer it not be included in the mission. GShatan - disagree with interpretation that para 3 is only tied to new gTLDs. We are clarifying the mission, and unless the AOC has been outside the mission for all these past years. ICANN needs to continue to honour the commitment in 3C and this needs to be in the Bylaws. BBurr - obviously a disagreement of reading of the3 AOC. However, the language would be in the Bylaws. GShatan - talking about 3C, where would this go. BBurr - In para 33 of rec. 9 annex. GShatan - no consumer trust in there. Need consumer trust in DNS space. Not putting it in would be a change. and should not only be for new gTLDs. BBurr - All of the provisions of sec. 3 are addressed in different parts of the Bylaws. AGreenberg - only talking about putting in article 1 on the Bylaws - no need to be in the mission. We are in the weeds - there is much clutter around such things but we are not cleaning those other points. This is not only about new gTLDs. Compliance has those words in it. MMueller - If it does not have to be in the mission then we are closer to agreeing. We already agreed that the key parts of the AOC were to go into the Bylaws. AGeenberg - What we are discussing commitments vs mission (the new sub-sections). MMueller - NCSG has always had issues with this AOC commitment which was a top down policy vs a bottom up policy. Our concern is knowing and limiting the mission to what is required to coordination on a global scale. There are many orgs which do consumer trust such as the OECD.I am a minimalist when it comes to the mission. BBurr - could you load the DelBianco document. SDB could you walk us through this. <https://community.icann.org/x/EKpYAw> https://community.icann.org/x/EKpYAw SDelBianco - I was convinced early that the consumer trust language should be ok by introducing AOC 9.3 into the Bylaws and is sufficient. I replied NO to both questions. There was a need to review the new gTLD program along the lines of consumer trust and competition. The Board was approached to define consumer trust, choice and competition. In Dec. 2010 the Board instructed to define these terms which took about a year. these definitions were approved by the Board. this establishes in a bottom up fashion we are capable of developing such things properly - and as such it is appropriate to transport AOC 9.3 into the review section of the Bylaws. BBurr - yes this is about new gTLDs. No one is opposed to consumer trust but not without proper definition otherwise it could leave ICANN open to issues. An undefined consumer protection requirement that is unbounded does not make sense. KArateh - we have to conclude on this at this meeting. AGreenberg - we need consumer trust for all names and not just new gTLDs. BBurr - are you proposing we include a new responsibility for ICANN on consumer protection. AGreenberg - This is about consumer trust not consumer protection. Just put the words of the AOC into the Bylaws. MMueller - I understand AG perspective. What Alan is missing is if you detach these words from the context of the new gTLDs then you create a generalized obligation, which is unclear what you gaining with this vs the risks that could be related to this. SDB seems satisfied. It is unclear why we need to detach this from its context. BBurr - the issue is unintended consequences could really arise to have untethered language which would be an expansion of ICANN's mission. Uncertain what is the difference between consumer trust and protection. GShatan - Section 3 AOC defines the responsibilities of ICANN and removing this responsibility implies changing the mission. The review is just one specific case of this. But if we want to remove it we should be honest about this. BBurr (chat) disagrees with this interpretation of AOC on this. AGreenberg - If we walk away from this we need to be honest and it is not this groups responsibility to decide if this should be included or not. BBurr - language was in the first draft but not in 2 and 3. We are not talking about walking away from anything. There are legitimate concerns about how this would be included properly in the Bylaws. Chris Disspain: We are only 'walking away' if we agree with your interpretation...in my interpretation you are over-reaching BBurr - I will summarize this discussion and circulate it so we can have more discussions. AGreenberg - If we are not including this language - where is this covered in the Bylaws. BBurr - lets take this back to the list. KArasteh - can we have a small summary? BBurr - We have two different perspectives on the language in the AOC 1 concept of consumer trust is specifically tied to the expansion of the gTLD space and requires a review to ensure this and those people are concerned about the unintended consequences of broadening this to all TLDs. The second veiw is that section 3 of the AOC is a general commitment and that it is inadequate to limit this to the expansion of the gTLD space and its review and that ICANN should have a general commitment to promoting consumer trust in the g space. The questions is does this broaden ICANN's scope or fail to include a key point. I will think about how to advance this. Would this require further work in WS2? SDelBianco - Definitions presented in the document were not meant to be included to the bylaws - they were just a reference. 3C convinces me its a chapeau because if this was a general requirement it would apply to even ccTLDs and this would not make sense. As such is a chapeau AGreenberg - I have no idea what was meant when it was written but things were changing when it was written in 2009. BBurr - same arguments as discussed above. We will stop here and get back to everyone on list. Conclusion. Documents Presented * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142352/Ad%20Hoc%20Meeting... tionDate=1452519329758&api=v2> Ad Hoc Meeting.pdf * <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/56142352/Mission-definition... ationDate=1452519343356&api=v2> Mission-definitions.pdf