[bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards

[Marilyn Cade]

Let's not be afraid of calling for self governance and collaborative multi stakeholder governance.
That is what ICANN is supposed to be about. 
Self governance in a space that is identified with an industry sector that is regulated [I think] has to include the government, and consumer protection authorities, and someone who represents registrants, and not just be about a registry wanting to control an industry space. An entity that wants to have a seal of approval for an industry string should want to have a self governance council of some sort to ensure their own integrity and ability to adhere to what they say they are doing.  And to support their distinctiveness. 
Kids /Children is also an area where there is legitimate concern about a 'clean and safe' space. I am sure that those legitimate companies who market children's goods don't want to have child luring going on in an adjacent domain name that looks confusingly similar to theirs.:-) 
The BC can call for innovation by the applicants and offer some ideas about self governance, but our comments  can't just be suggesting that it is okay to be industry insiders in such an advisory group. It needs to include consumer activists, and government, and be inclusive and representative.  Yes, that is a potential cost, but frankly, any applicant that wanted to operate an industry string should have already done this. The fact they haven't is distressing, 
Perhaps some have, and we just haven't learned of it. 
Example of iffor:  I don't see the need to over identify with .xxx but actually, also PIR has an advisory council [or something similar.   Let's go for a couple of examples. But iffor did a good job. Why not accept that? 
So, two strong points: First, the GAC did its own homework, and we should not criticize the strings that they identified. Originally I didn't get it, so I did a bit on online research.  Turns out that Health and Fitnesses gyms are regulated in most countries -- apparently killing people by over exercising them on machines is a bad thing. :-) And food supplements are as well. :-) Long list of countries. Including Chile, Argentina, Mexico, S.Africa, Canada, New Zealand, US... etc. 
How about proposing a self governing entity/council/group that includes industry professional associations; NGOs; independent experts; and consumer activists, plus governmental participants, as observer, suitable to the industry, and calling on the applicant to create and support the advisory group? 
PIR and iFFOR are both examples. 
Some country codes also do something similar. 
M


To: mike at rodenbaugh.com; Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com; svg at stephanevangelder.com; sdelbianco at netchoice.org
CC: bc-gnso at icann.org
From: john at crediblecontext.com
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:28:59 -0700

I must agree!
Berard

--------- Original Message ---------Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards
From: icann at rodenbaugh.com
Date: 5/13/13 11:58 am
To: "'Elisa Cooper'" <Elisa.Cooper at markmonitor.com>, "'Stéphane_Van_Gelder_Consulting'" <svg at stephanevangelder.com>, "'Steve DelBianco'" <sdelbianco at netchoice.org>
Cc: bc-gnso at icann.org

Agreed. Mike RodenbaughRODENBAUGH LAWTel/Fax: +1.415.738.8087http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:15 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting; Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards +1 Best,Elisa Elisa CooperDirector of Product MarketingMarkMonitor Elisa CooperChair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: owner-bc-gnso at icann.org [mailto:owner-bc-gnso at icann.org] On Behalf Of Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:48 AM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso at icann.org
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards Thanks Steve. I may not be getting the point you are making, but I would feel it inappropriate for the BC as a group to recommend use of an organisation that is so closely linked with one specific TLD (Dot XXX). I would prefer a more general comment along the lines of "in general, the BC is in favor of industry self-regulation and recommends that for the specific industries outlined in the GAC's advice on safeguards, an appropriate entity be selected to provide guidance to help each industry sector self regulate." Just very rough wording, but you get the general idea of my comments I'm sure ;) Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89Skype: SVANGELDER
www.StephaneVanGelder.com
----------------
Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant


LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/ Le 13 mai 2013 à 14:22, Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco at netchoice.org> a écrit :


For many of the safeguards requested by the GAC, the BC might recommend industry self-regulation via IFFOR (The International Foundation for Online Responsibility).  (link) See Kieren McCarthy's article on CircleID (link)   note: Kieren serves on IFFOR's Policy Council. Since we are currently drafting BC comments on GAC advice, it would be helpful to hear BC member feedback on whether we should recommend IFFOR   This may have been what Marilyn and Ron were getting at during the last two conference calls. -- Steve DelBiancoExecutive DirectorNetChoicehttp://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482    		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/bc-gnso/attachments/20130513/096a219c/attachment.html>