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

[Jonathan Weinberg]

	It occurs to me that some of the differences between the
participants in this discussion lie simply in terminology.  Speaking
purely descriptively, and not normatively at all:  ICANN takes some
consumer-protection concerns into account in formulating its policies.  
That's the point of the transfers task force, which is seeking to decide
what policy should govern so that registrants (that is, consumers) will be
able easily to effect transfers when they want to, while being protected
from transfers they haven't authorized.  Mandating registry pricing is
another way in which ICANN seeks to protect consumers.  In seeking to
devise such policies to protect consumers, ICANN is acting as a "consumer
protection body" in that sense.  On the other hand, ICANN is not setting
up a formal mechanism under which it will adjudicate particular complaints
by consumers that a registrar (say) has violated ICANN policies or rules
incorporating those concerns.  So ICANN is not acting as a "consumer
protection body" in *that* sense.  (The only area in which ICANN has
mandated such nitty-gritty adjudication in individual cases is the UDRP,
where the desired goal is trademark-owner-protection.)

	This is not to say that ICANN would ignore widespread complaints
by consumers that a registrar (say) was violating policies incorporating
consumer protection concerns; at some point, it would likely investigate
and consider taking action.  But it would do so on an ad hoc basis.

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at msen.com




On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM wrote:

> Milton,
> 
> the "transfers" task force is a good example to analyze indeed.
> 
> I hope that this TF, which is doing DNSO work, is doing policy-level and
> not operational-level work. I.e. it is looking at the principles which
> determine the way things work, not itself becoming the consumer-protection
> agency.
> 
> At all times we must still ask ourselves about mission creep before
> entering these new, wide fields.
> 
> Alejandro Pisanty
> 
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
>      Dr. Alejandro Pisanty
> Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
> UNAM, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
> Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico
> Tel. (+52-55) 5622-8541, 5622-8542 Fax 5550-8405
> http://www.dgsca.unam.mx
> ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, www.isoc.org
> =====>>> Participa en ICANN, www.icann.org
> .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> > >>> "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx> 02/10/02 12:45PM >>>
> > > there is a difference between doing things in such a way that does not
> > > harm consumers and becoming a consumer protection agency. The first
> > > is a policy issue and I'm all ears for input. The second is mission creep,
> >
> > There may be a difference, but it sits somewhere on a slippery slope.
> > The "transfers" task force provides a perfect example. Is Verisign
> > abusing its hold on registrants by refusing to let go of names that
> > people want to transfer? Or is Verisign protecting people against
> > "slammers" who try to transfer names without authorization?
> >
> > More deeply, if it is ICANN's job to create and enforce a
> > vertical separation between registrar and registry in order to
> > encourage "competition" and "portability" of domain names -
> > a job it aggressively assumed from its earliest days -
> > then along with that goes the responsibility to define a fair,
> > secure and efficient procedure for transfering names.
> > Consumer protection has to be an element of that.
> >
> > Once ICANN has gotten into the business of defining and
> > enforcing competition policy why shouldn't suppliers come to
> > it and complain that certain practices are anti-competitive?
> > And if suppliers can come to ICANN asking it to regulate the
> > industry differently (and believe me, they do it daily)
> > then why can't consumers come to it and complain about suppliers?
> >
> > The only problem I have with what Jamie is saying is the
> > "Rip Van Winkle" element:
> >
> > He is assuming that no one else in NCDNHC has noticed it. In
> > fact, we have been on this for some time. Some
> > people are just waking up to it.
> >
> > --MM
> >
> >
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> 


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg at msen.com