[CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement

[Malcolm Hutty]

> On 9 Jan 2016, at 21:56, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au> wrote:
> 
> Hello Malcolm,
> 
>>> Even if rephrased, I don't think I understand what is intended to be meant by "consumer trust".
> 
> It is a general term like human rights and public interest.

That's what worries me: these general terms are too slippery, and need to be applied specifically to the ICANN context. As the Board itself has said in respect of "human rights". 
> 
> I think the key is that it needs to be grounded in what it means for ICANN's limited mission.
> 
> If we are talking about domain names it could be that:
> 
> - a domain name resolves deterministically to a particular resource connected to the Internet
> 
> (the implementation of DNSSEC at the root was intended to help with that)
> 
> - there is a legal person that can be contacted when there is a problem with the operation of the  domain name
> 
> (the collection and publication of contact information was intended to help with that)
> 
> What it should not be in my personal view:
> 
> - anything to do with the content of a website that might be referred to by the domain name
> 
> - anything to do with the characteristics of a legal person associated with a domain name that might be inferred from the name
> 

I agree that the above reflects how consumer trust should be understood in the ICANN context. But I am worried that if we include the term, it could be interpreted to mean the things that you say (and I agree) it should not mean. 

In particular I do not think the necessary purpose of the DNS is to generate consumer trust by acting as a quality accreditation mark for the services that the DNS supports. That does not mean the DNS cannot be used in that fashion in specific cases: many .brand TLDs exist for precisely that reason, as well as highly regulated generics. But that is specific to the business model for a particular TLD and its registry: it is not for ICANN to impose on all registries a requirement to vet and accredit their users (and inevitably, as a consequence, to impose standards for what vetting they need to perform).  I am worried that the inclusion of this term would be used to try to force ICANN to develop such a policy, rather than respecting diversity between domains. 

Also, I can't think of anything that ICANN does in respect of numbers or protocols where consumer trust issues are directly invoked. Can you?

Malcolm. 




> 
> Regards,
> Bruce Tonkin 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community