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

Avri Doria avri at acm.org
Sat Jan 9 20:07:21 UTC 2016

Makes sense.
Great that you caught the omission.


On 09-Jan-16 14:53, Alan Greenberg wrote:
> Before my substantive reply to this thread, I note that the text on
> the AoC Review on Promoting Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer
> Choice (CCTCC) seems to have been omitted from Annex 9 (between the
> SSR review starting at para 98 and the Whois review starting at para
> 112 (which should be in bold), jumping from Review 2 to Review 4).
> Since no one seems to have noticed, I have to wonder what else was
> lost in this revision?
> If the text for this review had been there, it would have said (taken
> from the 2nd draft proposal)
> "566 ICANN will ensure that as it expands the Top-Level Domain (TLD)
> space, it will adequately address issues of competition, consumer
> protection, security, stability and resiliency, malicious abuse
> issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection."
> and
> "569 This Review will examine the extent to which the expansion of
> gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice,
> as well as effectiveness of:"
> Clearly this review is focused on the EXPANSION of the namespace.
> However, the vast percentage of names in use now and probably for the
> foreseeable future are not associated with the expansion. Omitting the
> issue from the core serves to disenfranchise the consumers who use
> those names (that is, the bulk of all Internet use).
> I agree with those who say that the term may be hard to define,
> quantify and measure. That is true with many things we value in life.
> But it does make them less important. Regardless, the term is used
> twice in the Whois Review section of the proposed Bylaws as well as in
> the missing CCTCC section. The lack of a definition does not preclude
> its use there and certainly we cannot omit the expression in a
> wholesale manner because of the lack of a definition or metrics.
> We have said that much of what we are doing in in this CCWG is not to
> control the current Board or management, but to ensure that as time
> goes forward, we can ensure that veer off course. This is exactly such
> a situation. The formal Mission of Contractual Compliance is "To
> preserve the security, stability and resiliency of the Domain Name
> System and to promote consumer trust."
> (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en
> <https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/about-2014-10-10-en>). In the
> past, Compliance has been accused of only enforcing certain aspects of
> its contracts and specifically not the parts that would often impact
> consumers (such as Whois issues and issues related to improper domain
> name transfers or hijacking). Thankfully that is no longer the case,
> but we need to ensure that the "bad old times" do not return.
> Capturing the concept of consumer trust in ICANN's mission is exactly
> how we can do so. The Contractual Compliance mission statement can be
> changed at will with no notice or community consultation. Embedding
> the concept in ICANN's mission provides the protection that is needed.
> Alan
> At 09/01/2016 12:12 PM, Kavouss Arasteh wrote:
>> Steve, I tend to agree with Malcolm in saying that whenever, we do
>> not have a xclear definition nor a descrition for an item what is the
>> usefulness of its inclusion in BYLAWS ?
>> The difficulties that I have is , we may include many thing in the
>> Mission and/or Bylaws, but when ICANN wants / required  to implement
>> that it would face difficulties to do so. Even if ICANN claims that
>> it has had implemented, it is difficult to check the validity of that
>> claim.
>> Regards
>> Kavouss
>> 2016-01-09 14:16 GMT+01:00 David Post <david.g.post at gmail.com
>> <mailto:david.g.post at gmail.com> >:
>>     I do not think that the addition of this language is a good
>>     idea.  Lengthening the list of 'values' and 'commitments' that
>>     ICANN is supposed to implement will inevitably weaken the Mission
>>     Statement.  The more the document suggests that it is ICANN's job
>>     to balance a wide variety of different concerns - enhancing
>>     competition and consumer choice, supporting geographic and
>>     cultural diversity, promoting human rights and the global public
>>     interest - the easier it becomes for ICANN to justify pretty much
>>     anything it might do in the future as promoting one or another of
>>     these broad goals.  The point that Andrew Sullivan made recently
>>     in connection with the discussions about the GPI is applicable
>>     here, I think:
>>     "ICANN should pay attention to its well-understood and needed
>>     functions.  It should not go adventuring out into global
>>     governance issues that
>>     distract from that narrow set of responsibilities.  And it should
>>     not embrace language that distracts from the narrow
>>     responsibilities --
>>     lest such language become an attractive nuisance that encourages
>>     people to think ICANN has power it never has had"
>>     David
>>     At 04:10 PM 1/8/2016, Burr, Becky wrote:
>>>           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 ttrust, and consumer choice in the
>>>             DNS marketplace….” 
>>>             Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says: 
>>>                       … If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII oor
>>>             other language character sets) have been in operation
>>>             for one year, ICANNwill 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 <tel:%2B1.202.533.2932>  Mobile:
>>>         +1.202.352.6367 <tel:%2B1.202.352.6367> / 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
>>     *******************************
>>     David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New
>>     America Foundation
>>     blog (Volokh Conspiracy)
>>     http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
>>     <http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post> 
>>     book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n      
>>     <http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0>
>>     music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic
>>     <http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic%A0>publications etc. 
>>     http://www.davidpost.com         <??>
>>     *******************************
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>> _______________________________________________
>> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community 
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list