[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: Mission creep and consumer protection

[t byfield]

i'm not sure if this question has been disposed of; if not, 
then here are my observations.

apisan at servidor.unam.mx (Fri 02/08/02 at 05:26 PM -0600):

> ICANN's mission has always excluded consumer protection explicitly. ICANN
> (you know this as a member of ICANN) does aid in some communications
> between consumers and registrars (plus registries if they deal directly).

consumer protection is very regularly invoked as a justifiction
for, e.g., pro-IP policies bearing on domain-name issues. don't
just take my word for it; even a cursory search on ICANN's site
on the phrase 'consumer confusion' (and *excluding* both e-mail 
comments' and berkman meetings) returns 14+ pags of hits includ-
ing:

WGC interim report:
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html
palage letter for reg constituency to lynn:
   http://www.icann.org/correspondence/palage-to-lynn-16aug01.htm
WGB report:
   http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20000215.NCwgb-report.html
ICANN's own FAQ, summarizing opposition to new gTLDs:
   http://www.icann.org/financials/tax/california/website-faqs.htm
m. cade in montevideo NC meeting on ccTLD policy:
   http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/scribe-nc-090801.html

and so on, ad nauseam. thus, if the claim that...

     ICANN's mission has always excluded consumer protection 
     explicitly.

is *true*, then ICANN has crept well beyond its mission; if, on
the other hand, it is *false*, then there's little point in dis-
cussing this further.

and, i should add, 'consumer confusion' is only one small aspect
of a much larger realm of consumer-protection isues. pricing, in
both wholesale and retail markets, is another aspect that ICANN
has nano-managed, both 'globally' (diposition of legacy gLTD pay-
ment structures) and 'nationally' (the unilateral attempt to ass-
ess uniform fees on ccTLDs).
 
> The competition principle included among other basic founding principles
> for ICANN is of course expected to have an impact on consumers, through
> choice, variety of services, pricing, etc.

but ICANN has never defined any clear and distinct criteria for 
separating these issues from, e.g., IP issues. on the contrary,
both staff and board have persistently muddled these together--
most memorably in the public discussions of new gTLD proposals 
at MDR2K. that event was documented in painful detail, hence my
argument, again, be factually substantiatd.

> But consumer-provider
> relationships are well cared for in many national legislations (it does
> get hairier cross-borders), and are far beyond the mission of ICANN as
> many perceive it from the very start.

unfortunately, staff and the board seem not to share that 'percep-
tion.' and the idea that ICANN is content to respect national pol-
icies is, once again, demonstrably false (UDRP, the drive to estab-
lish a uniform ccTLD contract, etc.).

cheers,
t