[NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [council] Advice requested by the ICANN Board / Consumer Trust

[Alain Berranger]

Hi Wendy et al,

Thank you for your comprehensive response and indeed monopolizing the
analysis would be unacceptable. In a way, when the Chair suggested the more
developed dissenting position be sent directly to the Board, it was a
missed opportunity for the GNSO Council, independant of the voting outcome,
to capture both sides of the positions. So, I still would prefer that GNSO
recommendations be developed in such a way as to contribute equally to both
sides of the issue in order to inform broadly the deliberative decisions by
the Board for instance.

This is probably a very justified direct communication to the Board from
the dissenting parties, but I am convinced it would be preferable that it
be an exceptional route.

Cheers, Alain



On Sunday, January 27, 2013, Wendy Seltzer wrote:

> Hi Alain and all,
>
> Dissenters often do write to the Board. The reason I wanted to do so
> specifically here is because our disagreement is called out in the
> report, but only in a preliminary form (an early exchange in the
> drafting group, rather than later input). When I asked for an amendment
> in the GNSO Council meeting to include this more developed position, the
> chair suggested that we instead send it directly to the Board.  I'm just
> now realizing we haven't taken any further action.
>
> In this case, I think it's helpful to give the Board additional analysis
> to inform their deliberation on the meaning of "consumer trust," because
> a mistaken interpretation like that given in the largely
> trademark-driven report would negatively impact the rights and interests
> of individuals and non-commercial stakeholders concerned with free
> expression of less popular viewpoints and innovative development.
>
> The GNSO Council ratifies the consensus of stakeholder groups on policy
> development, but it doesn't monopolize the analysis and input to
> deliberative decisions.
>
> --Wendy
>
> On 01/15/2013 01:39 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
> > Dear NCSG Colleagues,
> >
> > While Wendy's arguments about innovation are convincing to me, I feel I
> > need understanding on how consensus is built and how decision-making is
> > made and communicated in/by the GNSO.
> >
> > From the point of view of GNSO procedures then, do we have to write to
> > Board for every issue NCSG dissents? or would that be an exceptional
> > situation? What is the purpose and value of the GNSO vote?  Does it mean
> > that the consensus, if any, firms up at the Board level only? When NCSG
> > agrees with a recommendation, do the other SGs usually write to the
> Board?
> > For that matter, in the case of GNSO votes with dissention, does/should
> the
> > Board not receive a summary of the arguments for and against the
> > recommendation?
> >
> > Alain
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy at seltzer.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi NCSG,
> >>
> >> We dissented from this recommendation in Council, but were outvoted. Do
> >> we want to send a letter of our own to the Board?
> >>
> >> Here was a letter I wrote to the drafting team, that we could repurpose
> >> for the Board:
> >>
> >> I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
> >> metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
> >> calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
> >> concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
> >> work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
> >> metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
> >> rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.
> >>
> >> The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
> >> value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
> >> leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
> >> because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
> >> chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
> >> their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
> >> expression and innovation.
> >>
> >> Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
> >> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
> >> system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
> >> destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
> >> activities.
> >>
> >> ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
> >> interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.
> >>
> >> In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
> >> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
> >> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
> >> laws:" namely,
> >> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
> >> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
> >> relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
> >> domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
> >> delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
> >> * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
> >> including reported data security breaches;
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
> >> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new
> gTLD;
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
> >> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
> >> gTLDs;
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
> >> new gTLDs
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
> >> distributing identities and account information used in identity fraud;
> and
> >> * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
> >> invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD
> >>
> >> Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
> >> "duplicates,Wendy Seltzer -- wendy at seltzer.org <javascript:;> +1
> 617.863.0613
> Policy Counsel, World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> Visiting Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>


-- 
Alain Berranger, B.Eng, MBA
Member, Board of Directors, CECI,
http://www.ceci.ca<http://www.ceci.ca/en/about-ceci/team/board-of-directors/>
Executive-in-residence, Schulich School of Business, www.schulich.yorku.ca
Treasurer, Global Knowledge Partnership Foundation, www.gkpfoundation.org
NA representative, Chasquinet Foundation, www.chasquinet.org
Chair, NPOC, NCSG, ICANN, http://npoc.org/
O:+1 514 484 7824; M:+1 514 704 7824
Skype: alain.berranger


AVIS DE CONFIDENTIALITÉ
Ce courriel est confidentiel et est à l’usage exclusif du destinataire
ci-dessus. Toute personne qui lit le présent message sans en être le
destinataire, ou l’employé(e) ou la personne responsable de le remettre au
destinataire, est par les présentes avisée qu’il lui est strictement
interdit de le diffuser, de le distribuer, de le modifier ou de le
reproduire, en tout ou en partie . Si le destinataire ne peut être joint ou
si ce document vous a été communiqué par erreur, veuillez nous en informer
sur le champ  et détruire ce courriel et toute copie de celui-ci. Merci de
votre coopération.

CONFIDENTIALITY MESSAGE
This e-mail message is confidential and is intended for the exclusive use
of the addressee. Please note that, should this message be read by anyone
other than the addressee, his or her employee or the person responsible for
forwarding it to the addressee, it is strictly prohibited to disclose,
distribute, modify or reproduce the contents of this message, in whole or
in part. If the addressee cannot be reached or if you have received this
e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete this e-mail and
destroy all copies. Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20130127/6b9eee74/attachment-0001.html>