Fwd: Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model
FYI -- please be so kind to find correspondence from Ron Andruff, member of the GNSO's Business Constituency (BC). Comments welcome. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:40:35 -0400 From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> To: <cherine.chalaby@icann.org> CC: <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>, <peter.nettlefold@dbcdd.gov.au>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl@gih.com> Dear Cherine, During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such gTLDs. As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of, or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN. In recognizing the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact of their applications, I have been working with others to develop approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their respective gTLDs. In our view, these practices and standards should reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as possible. An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable registrants and uses. The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide entities engaged in legitimate activities. This PAB approach establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments Specifications (PICS) for the registry. The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way. I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that would be of benefit to your Committee. Kind regards, RA *Ron Andruff* *RNA Partners* *www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>**
This says the regulatory model to be employed is to raise a Policy Advisory Board funded by registrants and from which the registry operator is excluded. One has to keep the sneaky fox out of the chicken coop. So now, um....let's see how this breaks, shall we? I will juxtapose just 2 of the attributes, taken directly from the Specifications document. Under the sub-heading [General(?)] Guiding Principles, this: "· Ensure that registrant eligibility policies are inclusive, transparent, pro-competitive and non-discriminatory and serve the affected community and the general public, particularly Internet users of domain registrant services" And the second, under the sub-heading Function, this: "· To ensure that new gTLD applicants for regulated industry gTLDs do not operate the registry in a manner that is antithetical to the overriding goals of competition and innovation" Quick, tell me what's wrong with these cupcakes? And I suggest this is before reflection on what .org and .com and etc... have become......and for why! Evan's idea of a trusted domain service is much smarter, more immediate and likely to be less costly to the registrant. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
FYI -- please be so kind to find correspondence from Ron Andruff, member of the GNSO's Business Constituency (BC). Comments welcome. Kind regards,
Olivier
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:40:35 -0400 From: Ron Andruff <randruff@rnapartners.com> To: <cherine.chalaby@icann.org> CC: <Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>, <peter.nettlefold@dbcdd.gov.au>, "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl@gih.com>
Dear Cherine,
During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such gTLDs.
As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of, or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN. In recognizing the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact of their applications, I have been working with others to develop approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their respective gTLDs. In our view, these practices and standards should reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as possible. An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable registrants and uses.
The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide entities engaged in legitimate activities. This PAB approach establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments Specifications (PICS) for the registry.
The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way.
I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that would be of benefit to your Committee.
Kind regards,
RA
*Ron Andruff*
*RNA Partners*
*www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>**
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
participants (2)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond