[CCWG-ACCT] [CCT-Review] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
JZuck at actonline.org
Sat Jan 9 20:51:25 UTC 2016
Well, not to go off on a tangent here but it’s important to recognize that these surveys are meant to be baselines for which there will be corresponding surveys a year later so it’s a little so soon to suggest that the new gTLD program is only for the wholesale market. Further, I’m not of a mind that consumer trust isn’t something we should strive for or attempt to measure (hence the surveys and others data being collected) despite the difficulty. If we undermine trust in the DNS through our activities we have failed at our expansionist mission as well.
That said, I’m wary to putting too much stuff in the core principles though perfectly happy with it as a bylaws objective associated with portions of ICANN’s mission so it’s not engaging in one activity at the expense of the actual justification of the activity. ;)
From: <cct-review-bounces at icann.org<mailto:cct-review-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Carlos Raul via CCT-Review <cct-review at icann.org<mailto:cct-review at icann.org>>
Reply-To: Carlos Raul <carlosraulg at gmail.com<mailto:carlosraulg at gmail.com>>
Date: Friday, January 8, 2016 at 4:39 PM
To: Becky Burr <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>>
Cc: "cct-review at icann.org<mailto:cct-review at icann.org>" <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: [CCT-Review] [CCWG-ACCT] "Consumer Trust" in the Mission Statement
thank you for starting this thread. I took the liberty to copy the newly created CCT review tema list.
I think you have framed the question right: does it requiere this level of relevance?
Personally have my problems with the "Consumer Trust" part. While more choice and fair competition are terms I can readily convert in economic terms, and there is a longstanding analytical framework for calculating consumer welfare ( in which more choice may or may NOT be based on more or less competition), Consumer Trust is not traditionally considered in the same framework. Some may add that what economist like to call Consumer Welfare is not even a tangible benefit to Consumers anyhow.
So the point I want to convey is that in any case, if we are talking at the highest level of principles, may the CCWG ACCt consider at least separating for the purposes of Monday´s discussion "Consumer Trust" on the one hand, from the more easily measurable Competition and Consumer Choice in economic terms.
After separating those to issues, I would suggest that if expansion of the DNS is going to be a permanent objective, then care should be spent in guaranteeing that it results in more choice and fair competition. Not sure if it qualifies as a highest level principle for ICANN though, because as long as we are in the US private sector, those objectives are guaranteed by Antitrust and Consumer Protection law.
No clue or opinion about how to handle Consumer Trust at a principle level, since the actual trend is for the DNS to become a Wholesale market, far away from consumer that make addressing requests based on search engines and mobile apps. This difference is already obvious from the separation of the Nilsen studies between the wholesale (Registrant https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-09-25-en) and the retail (consumer https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2015-05-29-en) parts of the markets.
Wish you all a nice weekend and I will try to connect on Monday.
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Burr, Becky <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>> 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 trust, and consumer choice in the DNS marketplace….”
Paragraph 9.3 of the AoC says:
… If 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.
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
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org<mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community