[CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

Burr, Becky Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
Tue Jan 12 22:12:46 UTC 2016


This is a good example of ensuring appropriate context – here the definitions were developed specifically to inform review of the gTLD expansion and may or may not make sense in a broader or more generalized context.

J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

From: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 4:43 PM
To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez via CCT-Review <cct-review at icann.org<mailto:cct-review at icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

Carlos Raul,

I presented those definitions (below) as examples of how our community is capable of defining concepts like ‘consumer’,  ‘consumer trust’ and ‘consumer choice’.  We created those definitions in a multi-stakeholder working group chartered to prepare for the AoC review on the 2012 gTLD expansion.

So it’s a ‘point of reference’ only in that we should not fear having those concepts in the bylaws, where we already have similar terms like public interest, security, stability, resiliency, etc.

I do not recommend that we bring those definitions into the bylaws — especially because they were developed only to review the gTLD expansion and would not apply to ccTLDs or legacy TLDs.

Here are working definitions of ‘Consumer' and 'Consumer Trust', from the 2012 Working Group that defined measures and metrics for the AoC Review of the 2012 gTLD expansion (<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_cctc_cctc-2Dfinal-2Dadvice-2Dletter-2D31oct12-2Den.pdf&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IyJWNj9jZ4-echjBC-piimSmeqCTi7fEjHrfb332URE&s=BhIayqqFNcMWP20aYoup9ioX5bJsakJcysmdtZkPHc4&e=>link<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_cctc_cctc-2Dfinal-2Dadvice-2Dletter-2D05dec12-2Den.pdf&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IyJWNj9jZ4-echjBC-piimSmeqCTi7fEjHrfb332URE&s=_MuZT7btvMzeekAGQnGCliNEVhjkEAAEwXoMfLhVzaM&e=> to WG report, page 5):

Consumer is defined as actual and potential Internet users and registrants.

Consumer Trust is defined as the confidence Consumers have in the domain name system. This includes
(i) trust in the consistency of name resolution
(ii) confidence that a TLD registry operator is fulfilling the Registry’s stated purpose and is complying with ICANN policies and applicable national laws and
(iii) confidence in ICANN’s compliance function.

Consumer Choice is defined as the range of options available to Consumers for domain scripts and languages, and for TLDs that offer meaningful choices as to the proposed purpose and integrity of their domain name registrants.

Competition is defined as the quantity, diversity, and the potential for and actual market rivalry of TLDs, TLD registry operators, and registrars.

That WG was created per a Dec-2010 Board resolution (link<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.icann.org_en_minutes_resolutions-2D10dec10-2Den.htm&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IyJWNj9jZ4-echjBC-piimSmeqCTi7fEjHrfb332URE&s=K3Tncv6bDKU_RBNDmmkGe93qzYsVjMs__-plfso_pTA&e=>) requesting advice from the GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC and GAC on establishing the definition, measures, and three-year targets for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the DNS in preparation for the AoC required review of the 2012 gTLD expansion.

The WG's final report<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gnso.icann.org_en_issues_cctc_cctc-2Dfinal-2Dadvice-2Dletter-2D05dec12-2Den.pdf&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IyJWNj9jZ4-echjBC-piimSmeqCTi7fEjHrfb332URE&s=_MuZT7btvMzeekAGQnGCliNEVhjkEAAEwXoMfLhVzaM&e=> was adopted by its chartering organizations, GNSO and ALAC, with ALAC adding several additional measures.

From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez <crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 3:01 PM
To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez via CCT-Review <cct-review at icann.org<mailto:cct-review at icann.org>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Christmas trees" and "Consumer Trust" in Article 1 of the Bylaws

Dear Becky,

as a I´m eagerly waiting in line for some issues allocated to WS2 and member of the CCT Review Team that starts tomorrow by the way, I follow this thread with particular interest. I kindly ask for 3 clarifications:


  *   I ask you kindly to explain in plain language what " introducing a generalized obligation that ICANN promote “consumer trust” in the DNS and Internet untethered to ICANN’s role in new gTLDs”  means.


  *   Also going back to a previous mail, I also reacted to your initial question by suggesting to at least separate Consumer Trust from the two other elements well know in the economic literature (Competition and Choice) and would  understand from your position that right now we are effectively separating this two sides of the initial title in the AoC that puts them together.


  *   Additionally, in Steve Del Bianco second mail to the thread he referred to a set of definition from a previous working group (AIG report) on CCT. I would like to ask you if those definitions out of a WG can be considered to be a reasonable point of reference.


thank you very much

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
_____________________

email: crg at isoc-cr.org<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>
Skype: carlos.raulg
+506 8837 7176 (cel)
+506 4000 2000 (home)
+506 2290 3678 (fax)
_____________________
Apartado 1571-1000
San Jose, COSTA RICA








On 12Jan, 2016, at 13:08, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> wrote:

I reject the argument that we have turned Article 1 into a “ Christmas tree” already and should thus not object to adding an additional consumer protection role for ICANN.  I  commend folks to look at the three column side by side analysis of the changes to Commitments and Core Values in the 3rd Draft Report.  The relevant chart starts on page 11 of Annex 5.  I believe that it demonstrates pretty conclusively that in transposing the AoC and the NTIA requirements into Section 1 of the Bylaws we have not YET introduced an entirely new concept into ICANN’s wheelhouse.  The language on human rights would be a departure from that standard, and the introduction of a generalized “consumer trust” role would be yet another.  Apart from these two concepts, all of the assigned roles and responsibilities appear in ICANN’s existing Bylaws, Articles of Incorporation, and the White Paper itself.

I urge you to review this argument by reference to the actual text in the proposal, which includes the 3 column comparison.  Here’s my analysis below for those who are interested.  At the end I explain again why I am deeply opposed to including a reference to “consumer trust” untethered to the new gTLD context.

Commitment 1.  You can see (from the blue text at the top of page 12) that we added language regarding operation “consistent with its bylaws for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole, international law, open and transparent process, and competition.  The obligation to comply with bylaws (limited Mission) appears now in (existing) Core Value 2; the competition provisions appear in (existing Core Values 5 and 6); the reference to international law appears in the existing Articles of Incorporation, as does the reference to the benefit of the Internet community as a whole; transparency gets a whole section in ICANN’s existing Bylaws.

Commitment 2 incorporates the concept of neutral and judgment free [operation of the DNS], which we agreed would become "Preserve and enhance the neutral and judgment free administration of the technical DNS.”  We also added direct references to interoperability, resilience, and openness.  I don’t think any of these concepts are new.  To the extent that they are, they are specifically cited as a requirement for the transition to proceed.

Commitment 3 requires ICANN to maintain the capacity and ability to do its work in support of a singer interoperable Internet.  While this language is new, it strikes me as basic service to its stability and security Mission.

Commitment 4 is a very modest restatement of existing Core Value 2.

Commitment 5 restates existing Core Value 7, and restates clearly accepted commitments to bottom-up, multistakeholder processes, private sector leadership informed by public policy advice, etc.  All of these concepts appear in the existing Bylaws.  While the phrases "bottom-up" and “multistakeholder” may not appear, they are echoes from the White Paper and the PDP spelled out in the Bylaws.

Commitment 6 restates existing Core Value 8.

Commitment 7 restates existing Core Value 10.

Core Value 2 (which is really 1, but for some reason the chapeau is numbered here) restates existing Core Value 3, Core Value 7, and Core Value 9.

Core Value 3 (should be 2) restates existing Core Value 4 and again references the use of bottom-up, multistakeholder processes.

Core Value 4 (should be 3) restates existing Core Value 5.

Core Value 5 (should be 4) restates existing Core Value 6 and again references the use of bottom-up, multistakeholder processes.

Core Value 6 (should be 5) restates existing Core Value 9 and adds the concept of fiscal responsibility and accountability.  Accountability already appears in the ICANN Bylaws, and it is hard to make the case that requiring ICANN to be fiscally responsible reflects a new role or obligation.

Core Value 7 (should be 6) restates existing Core Value 11.

Core Value 8 (should be 7) is new – but references the need to employ processes and procedures to prevent capture.  Again, that strikes me as inherent in being accountable, serving the Internet community as a whole, etc.

Accordingly, I remain strongly opposed to introducing a generalized obligation that ICANN promote “consumer trust” in the DNS and Internet untethered to ICANN’s role in new gTLDs.  Some argue that promoting “consumer trust” in general (as opposed to in the context of new gTLDs) is demonstrably separable from sovereign legal concepts governing consumer protection, but don’t (and really can’t) support that by reference to national or international law.  We really do not have a grip on the unintended consequences that this language could have, in particular, on registries – both gTLDs and ccTLDs – registrars, and entities that services that use the Internet’s unique identifiers.  I am particularly concerned that this raises issues related to content regulation – consumer protection law is at its heart involves regulation of speech (albeit, commercial speech).  I am happy to further explore this concept as part of Work Stream 2 (or separately).

Becky


J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office: +1.202.533.2932  Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>

From: David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com<mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:40 AM
To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>>
Cc: Jonathan Zuck <jzuck at actonline.org<mailto:jzuck at actonline.org>>, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>>, Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz<mailto:becky.burr at neustar.biz>>, Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement

Jonathan Zuck wrote:

Agree with Steve here. We need to keep core values minimal. This Christmas Tree is already getting weighed down a bit too much for my tastes.


Alan Greenberg wrote:
Oh I agree. But it got heavy a long time ago. If we want to start stripping stuff out that we have added, I am all for it.
Why all this vehemence about this one item?

I would suggest that it's because (a) while we may not have reached a tipping point of weighing down the Christmas Tree with so many values and commitments that ICANN will be able, in effect, to do whatever it likes itn the future, we're perilously close, and we should resist the temptation to add any new ones (including this one).  And (b) there are far too many things ICANN would be able to justify (in good faith) as being designed to "increase consumer trust" that would take it very far from its core mission - instituting a program to investigate and remedy false, fraudulent, or defamatory claims on websites, for instance.

David



Alan


From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org> >
Date: Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM
To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> >, Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement

Our recommendation #9 is Incorporating the Affirmation of Commitments in ICANN’s Bylaws.   That includes commitments made by ICANN in the AoC, such as the commitment cited by Becky, to "promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace."

First, I don’t think we should casually discard any of those three commitment items just because it is difficult to define.    The AoC review that’s just begun will develop working definitions as part of its review.

I would answer 'No' to both of Becky’s questions.   This commitment does not need to be part of Core Values, and could live in the bylaws section describing the required AoC review of any expansion of new gTLDs.

Since it is in the bylaws, ICANN’s fulfillment of this commitment could be the subject of an IRP.

And any changes to this commitment would be subject to veto by the empowered community.


From: < accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz> >
Date: Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM
To: Accountability Community < accountability-cross-community at icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org>>
Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement

  As discussed in our call yesterday, we would like to get some discussion started on some of the issues with the Mission Statement, Commitments & Core Values elements of the CCWG Proposal.  One of those issues relates to the inclusion of the concept of promoting “consumer trust” in the Commitments and/or Core Values.  The USCIB comment, for example, urged inclusion of a Commitment/Core Value of “promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace.”  ALAC urged inclusion of the consumer trust language.
This is the topic we will discuss on Monday, during the Ad Hoc meeting just announced.  Feel free to contribute your views in this thread, particularly if you are not going to be able to participate on Monday.
     ISSUE: Paragraph 3 of the Affirmation of Commitments describes the goals of the AoC, saying:

       "This document affirms key commitments by DOC and ICANN, including commitments to: …  (c) promote competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….”
Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says:
        … IIf and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice …. ICANN will organize a further review of its execution of the above commitments two years after the first review, and then no less frequently than every four years.
        In the Initial Draft Proposal, this AoC language was transposed into the Core Values by requiring ICANN to depend “on market mechanisms to proote and sustain a healthy competitive environment in the DNS market that enhances consumer trust and choice.” (Para 107, page 27 Initial Draft Proposal)
  In the 2nd Draft Proposal we elected to delete the reference to consumer trust in the Mission statement and include it in the Review section of the Bylaws (See 3rd Report, Appendix 9, Para. 33).  The reason we agreed to make this switch was because it is not a standalone ICANN commitment in the AoC, rather, it is specifically tied to new gTLD expansion and specifically tied to a required review.
       Several commenters in both the 2nd and 3rd comment round argued that the Core Values should specifically call out consumer trust.  Some have disputed my characterization of Paragraph 3 of the AoC (i.e., it states the goals of the AoC but does not recite a specific commitment), on the grounds that my characterization is an opinion and not a fact.
QUESTIONS:
Should an AoC provision specific to TLD expansion be leveraged to impose generalized, independent, and affirmative competition and consumer trust protection obligations on ICANN?
Does ICANN’s fundamental Mission to ensure “stable and secure operation” of the DNS, and its various Commitments (i.e., to use processes that enable competition,         and to preserve stability, reliability, security, global interoperability, resilience, and openness) adequately address this concern?


J. Beckwith Burr
Neustar, Inc./Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer
1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006
Office:+1.202.533.2932  Mobile:+1.202.352.6367 /neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz/>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NtkBowesRAzbMpwys793DjrRP7JS0cud1PvjbfHJXyc&s=S40xFzrQgu3gB4EC49xZEMzl8piQCGDlUc-3LiT5bx0&e=>
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NtkBowesRAzbMpwys793DjrRP7JS0cud1PvjbfHJXyc&s=S40xFzrQgu3gB4EC49xZEMzl8piQCGDlUc-3LiT5bx0&e=>

*******************************
David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.washingtonpost.com_people_david-2Dpost&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NtkBowesRAzbMpwys793DjrRP7JS0cud1PvjbfHJXyc&s=UpqXB2b5N4s7L-iJXsaW6-FyEcpJIGblvzhi6KLarns&e=>book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n     <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_c327w2n-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0-25A0&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NtkBowesRAzbMpwys793DjrRP7JS0cud1PvjbfHJXyc&s=miOeKUlN4_PNmLHbeHwyNVpzTX8WzqchWVqr5l6ENbU&e=>
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__tinyurl.com_davidpostmusic&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NtkBowesRAzbMpwys793DjrRP7JS0cud1PvjbfHJXyc&s=J87XSge-oxlXPP7Q38XN_CMENLTL4Kz0XERCuQxBYPg&e=> publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com       <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.davidpost.com-25EF-25BF-25BD-25EF-25BF-25BD-25EF-25BF-25BD-25EF-25BF-25BD-25EF-25BF-25BD-25EF-25BF-25BD-25EF-25BF-25BD_&d=CwMFaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=NtkBowesRAzbMpwys793DjrRP7JS0cud1PvjbfHJXyc&s=ggT_6SLLyrlspH_Ix__rC93BdXA9Wf2M-tV8hfM3ef0&e=>
*******************************
_______________________________________________
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mm.icann.org_mailman_listinfo_accountability-2Dcross-2Dcommunity&d=CwMGaQ&c=MOptNlVtIETeDALC_lULrw&r=62cJFOifzm6X_GRlaq8Mo8TjDmrxdYahOP8WDDkMr4k&m=IyJWNj9jZ4-echjBC-piimSmeqCTi7fEjHrfb332URE&s=widUG0vgWxJf0_t9mlqq1kS_Q6qZcNJGjMFVJAOml1U&e=>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160112/3519b4ae/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list