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

David Post david.g.post at gmail.com
Tue Jan 12 14:40:29 UTC 2016

>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.


>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 
>>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>> > on behalf of Steve DelBianco 
>><<mailto:sdelbianco at netchoice.org>sdelbianco at netchoice.org >
>>Date: Saturday, January 9, 2016 at 11:10 AM
>>To: Becky Burr 
>><<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>Becky.Burr at neustar.biz  
>> >, Accountability Community 
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
>>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.
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org> 
>>accountability-cross-community-bounces at icann.org 
>> > on behalf of Becky Burr 
>><<mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>Becky.Burr at neustar.biz >
>>Date: Friday, January 8, 2016 at 2:10 PM
>>To: Accountability Community 
>><<mailto:accountability-cross-community at icann.org> 
>>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.
>>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 
>>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
>Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
>Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org

David G Post - Senior Fellow, Open Technology Institute/New America Foundation
blog (Volokh Conspiracy) http://www.washingtonpost.com/people/david-post
book (Jefferson's Moose)  http://tinyurl.com/c327w2n
music http://tinyurl.com/davidpostmusic 
publications etc.  http://www.davidpost.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160112/ffaafd27/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list