<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Steve, John<div><br></div><div>Thanks for forwarding this to the BC. It shows an tremendous amount of work. GAC on this topic? </div><div><br></div><div>Just an idea: for future preparation of the chart, could you ask Staff to number the items, so for instance: </div><div>1. % DNS Service Availability. Then comments could be related to the numbered item. In the meantime, I have done the best I can, but am not inserting my comments into the 'charts' at this point. </div><div><br></div><div>In addition, I have a few questions that may have already been discussed, and for some reason are not incorporated in the measurement elements. These could be part of a separate conference call discussion for the BC, perhaps on this particular topic, since many members are likely to have interest in this work. I am not proposing that this consume the upcoming BC members call, though, since it probably deserves its own time slot for those specifically interested. </div><div><br></div><div>I do support that the BC would like to have some metric about 'defensive registrations', versus resolving/purposed registrations. For example, a new gTLD may garner -- as did .biz and .info in their first years -- close to 70%++ of registrations [or more], that were duplicate, defensive registrations. URDP and URS won't identify this category, as the trademark 'holder' would have registered to prevent cyber squatting, or confusingly similar registrations. The document, page 8, item 2 in the chart, suggests that Zone and WHOIS data is the source. More discussion may be useful on this topic. </div><div><br></div><div>The first WHOIS TF, which I chaired, did a user survey, and respondents voluntarily participated. ICANN could encourage new gTLDs via the registry agreement to agree to post standard notices of the opportunity to participate in surveys and studies that will be undertaken, from time to time, under ICANN's sponsorship, and provide a neutral link to the information on the ICANN website which could have a page devoted to Studies and Surveys. </div><div><br></div><div>Second, in reference to 'difficulty' in consensus on survey questions -- over the years, the gNSO Council has struggled with, or even contested the development of validated surveys, due to the internal conflicts, and the challenges in the process of policy development. The WHOIS surveys are an example of years of debate, slowly moving toward accepting the studies. </div><div><br></div><div>Item 5: % Uptime for Registrar Services, such as WHOIS, contact info [meaning for the Registrar?] and [acknowledgement/resolution of] complaints. This item says that it is 'doubtful that Registrars will compile... etc. Wouldn't this item also be subject to random checks and publication of data by ICANN? </div><div><br></div><div>The 3 year target in many of the elements is "Lower than incidence in legacy gTLDs". Is there present data on what that is? And, I am assuming that the incidence is different from legacy gTLD to legacy gTLD. Is the WG proposing an average? Or is this part of the still to be discussed topics?</div><div><br></div><div>APWG and SpamHaus [and ICANN] have suggested areas to be measured that I think have some relevance as well for other ongoing work, such as DSSA, SSR, WHOIS and the SSAC's work and reports. Would it be possible to add a footnote when that is the case, so that the linkage is apparent? and the interactions supported? </div><div><br></div><div>Page 9, item 3 says that the Quantity of Ry Service Providers is 'moderately difficult to obtain'. I am not sure I agree. ICANN has to have an agrement with any Ry provider. </div><div><br></div><div>under the discussion of the definition of Competition: 'market rivalry' doesn't seem like a definition that can be measured. Does this mean that the WG thinks that this is about whether the RYs actively market 'against' each other? I would have thought that the issue was really different choices for registrants. A highly successful NOT for profit gTLD could NOT market against another group of gTLDs, but focus on just recruiting and marketing to their 'specialized' targeted group of registrants. </div><div><br></div><div>Item 5 and 6, page 9: again suggests that the % of new and all registrations is difficult to obtain. Is this saying that a defensive/duplicate registration is not a 'new' registration? </div><div><br></div><div>Item 7: Whole sale price: why is this going to be hard? Is this because the registries consider this confidential marketing information? However in Item 8, it seems easier to report 'retail' prices. I am not sure that I support the 3 year target. The prices should be gathered and made public in a report, but having second level names lower than $3.00 USD is not a measurement of value, or diversity. For example, a second level registration in a financially oriented gTLD is likely to cost more, due to due diligence, extra 'services', etc. LOW cost isn't a sufficient nor, in my view, a valid target. </div><div><br></div><div>Sunrise prices should be made avaliable and ICANN can publish them. I can't understand how a Registry is going to announce and operate a Sunrise without publishing the information. </div><div><br><div><div id="SkyDrivePlaceholder"></div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: sdelbianco@netchoice.org<br>To: bc-gnso@icann.org<br>CC: john@crediblecontext.com<br>Subject: [bc-gnso] latest draft of "advice" on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition<br>Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:18:42 +0000<br><br>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=unicode">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft SafeHTML">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div>As I've mentioned on recent BC member calls, John Berard and I are on a Working Group looking at definitions and metrics for Consumer Trust, Choice, and Competition in the gTLD expansion. </div>
</div>
</div>
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div>I've just circulated the 4th draft of "Advice" to the board on the definitions and measures. (attached)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>I changed the measures tables to include explanations of anticipated difficulties in obtaining and/or reporting each measure. The intention is to help the community understand the reasoning behind our assessments of difficulty. Hopefully this will stimulate
community members to offer suggestions during public comment period.</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our WG still needs to carefully review proposed measures in Choice and Competition sections. If possible, indicate your comments and edits about Measures and 3-year targets within the respective table row.After the WG finishes its edits, this draft advice
will be posted for public comment. We will conduct a public work session in Costa Rica as well.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
Then a final version will go to GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, and GAC for them to amend / send to the Board. </div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Our next WG call is Tuesday 7-Feb.</div>
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span>
<div style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
--</div>
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION" style="color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-family:Calibri, sans-serif;font-size:16px">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">
<span id="ecxOLK_SRC_BODY_SECTION">
<div>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word;color:rgb(0, 0, 0);font-size:16px;font-family:Calibri, sans-serif">
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>Steve DelBianco</div>
<div>Executive Director</div>
<div>NetChoice</div>
<div><a href="http://www.NetChoice.org/" target="_blank">http://www.NetChoice.org</a> and <a href="http://blog.netchoice.org/" target="_blank">http://blog.netchoice.org</a></div>
<div>+1.202.420.7482</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
</div>
</span></div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div></div></div> </div></body>
</html>