[CCWG-ACCT] FW: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"

Greg Shatan gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Fri Jan 15 15:27:14 UTC 2016


I also have to say that I find Fiona's words convincing.  When a document
(or any portion thereof) is ambiguous on its face, the intentions of the
drafters are a key factor in clarifying the ambiguity.  I consider the
meaning and purpose of Section 3 to be clarified, and I withdraw my
concerns about how Section 3 is being handled by the CCWG.

To the extent anyone thinks this issue is (or rather, was) significant
enough to derail the entire "AoC" Recommendation and postpone it to WS2, I
submit that this is now a non-issue.

Greg

On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:25 PM, avri <avri at ella.com> wrote:

> Thanks.
>
> Convinced me.
>
> Avri
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device
>
>
> -------- Original message --------
> From: "Burr, Becky" <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>
> Date:01/14/2016 5:59 PM (GMT-05:00)
> To: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Cc:
> Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] FW: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
>
>
> Fiona’s response, just in case she is unable to post to the list
>
> *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 */* *neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> From: <Alexander>, Fiona Alexander <falexander at ntia.doc.gov>
> Date: Thursday, January 14, 2016 at 5:58 PM
> To: Becky Burr <becky.burr at neustar.biz>
> Cc: Accountability Community <accountability-cross-community at icann.org>
> Subject: RE: Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
>
> Hi Becky
>
>
>
> In the drafting of the Affirmation of Commitments, NTIA’s intent was to
> ensure that consumer trust was considered as part of the new gTLD expansion
> process.  It was not to broadly include consumer trust as an obligation of
> ICANN.  If the community wants to have a discussion about consumer trust as
> a broad ICANN obligation, that is a community decision.  The Affirmation of
> Commitments, though, should not be read or used to justify an expansion, if
> one is to take place.
>
>
>
> Please let me know if I can assist further.
>
>
>
> Fiona
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Fiona M. Alexander
>
> Associate Administrator for International Affairs
>
> National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
>
> (202) 482-1866
>
> www.ntia.doc.gov
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Burr, Becky [mailto:Becky.Burr at neustar.biz
> <Becky.Burr at neustar.biz>]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 14, 2016 5:49 PM
> *To:* Alexander, Fiona
> *Cc:* Accountability Community
> *Subject:* Question regarding AoC and "consumer trust"
>
>
>
>
>
> Fiona –
>
>
>
> I am hoping you can shed some light on ICANN’s obligations with respect to
> “consumer trust”  under the Affirmation of Commitments (AoC).
>
>
>
> Paragraph 3 of the AoC states that the 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, entitled “Promoting competition, consumer trust, and consumer choice,”
> obligates ICANN to “ensure” that “as it contemplates expanding the
> top-level domain space, the various issues that are involved (including
> competition, consumer protection, security, stability and resiliency,
> malicious abuse issues, sovereignty concerns, and rights protection) will
> be adequately addressed prior to implementation.”  It goes on to require
> ICANN to conduct specific reviews at specified intervals following the
> introduction of new gTLDs.
>
>
>
> In transposing ICANN’s AoC commitments into the ICANN Bylaws, the CCWG
> Proposal contemplates adding a Bylaws provision requiring the specific
> reviews called for in the AoC, including review of competition, consumer
> trust, and consumer choice in relation to expansion of the gTLD space.
>
>
>
> Some members of the CCWG believe that this approach faithfully transposes
> the consumer trust obligations which are referenced in Paragraph 3 but
> explained  in Paragraph 9.3 to apply exclusively to ICANN’s expansion of
> the TLD space.  Other members of the CCWG interpret the AoC to obligate
> ICANN also to undertake a general role in promoting consumer trust “in the
> DNS marketplace.”
>
>
>
> It would be very helpful if you could help us understand the intent of the
> drafters with respect to ICANN’s “consumer trust” obligations ICANN under
> the Affirmation of Commitments.
>
>
>
> Many thanks on behalf of the CCWG,
>
>
>
> Becky Burr
>
> Rapporteur for Work Party 2
>
>
>
> *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 */**neustar.biz*
> <http://www.neustar.biz>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160115/2b0b6fc8/attachment.html>


More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list