[council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" fornon-binding best practices

[Alan Greenberg]

As did I.  Alan

At 28/09/2011 08:35 PM, tim at godaddy.com wrote:

>I received it from John via the list.
>
>Tim
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman at neustar.us>
>Sender: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2011 20:23:01
>To: 'Adrian 
>Kinderis'<adrian at ausregistry.com.au>; 
>'john at crediblecontext.com'<john at crediblecontext.com>; 
>'Marika Konings'<marika.konings at icann.org>
>Cc: 'council at gnso.icann.org'<council at gnso.icann.org>
>Subject: RE: [council] A thought on the potential of a "seal program" for
>  non-binding best practices
>
>
>We will be sending out the proposed Dakar agenda 
>shortly for comment, but we were planning on including this topic.
>
>On a separate note, for some reason I did not 
>get john's e-mail until Adrian replied.  Is this 
>just an issue with my e-mail or did others have the same problem?
>
>Thanks,
>
>
>
>Jeffrey J. Neuman
>Vice President, Law and Policy
>Neustar, Inc
>Jeff.Neuman at Neustar.biz
>P: 571-434-5772
>M: 202-549-5079
>
>  -----Original Message-----
>From:   Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian at ausregistry.com.au]
>Sent:   Wednesday, September 28, 2011 07:53 PM Eastern Standard Time
>To:     john at crediblecontext.com; Marika Konings
>Cc:     council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject:        RE: [council] A thought on the 
>potential of a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
>
>Can we add this to the agenda in Dakar please?
>
>
>
>The Registrars will have lots to say here J
>
>
>
>I appreciate the perspective and applaud JB for his approach.
>
>
>
>Adrian Kinderis
>
>
>
>
>
>From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
>[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of john at crediblecontext.com
>Sent: Thursday, 29 September 2011 1:18 AM
>To: Marika Konings
>Cc: council at gnso.icann.org
>Subject: [council] A thought on the potential of 
>a "seal program" for non-binding best practices
>
>
>
>Marika & fellow Coucillors:
>
>
>
>While I am totally supportive of working to 
>reach agreement on a shared definition of "best 
>practices" -- their identification, 
>implementation and measurement -- there is 
>something in the notion of a "seal of approval" that most piques my interest.
>
>
>
>As a founding member of the Board of TRUSTe 
>(www.truste.com), the online privacy rights 
>organization that manages a seal program for 
>data collection and use, I am familiar with the 
>consumer value of such industry self-regulatory programs can deliver.
>
>
>
>In the case of non-binding policies it may be 
>that such an approach -- a seal granted and 
>monitored by ICANN or a third-party -- can make 
>the implementation of these policies a matter of 
>competitive advantage for registrars and registries.
>
>
>
>As the non-binding best practices are 
>identified, they can be used as a way to review 
>business practices and earn (or not) a seal of 
>approval for the applying party.  The seal can 
>them become a part of that company's competitive 
>marketing.  Consumers can then choose to work 
>with a company based on their commitment to 
>those policies, knowing that a third-party is monitoring performance.
>
>
>
>This could be a way to supplement the consensus 
>policy process, using market forces help lead to consumer advantage.
>
>
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>
>Berard
>
>         -------- Original Message --------
>         Subject: [council] Discussion Paper on the Creation of Best Practices
>         to Address the Abusive Registrations of Domain Names
>         From: Marika Konings <marika.konings at icann.org>
>         Date: Wed, September 28, 2011 3:20 am
>         To: "council at gnso.icann.org" <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
>         Dear All,
>
>
>
>         As requested by the GNSO Council, 
> please find attached the discussion paper on 
> 'the creation of non-binding best practices to 
> help registrars andregistries address the 
> abusive registrations of domain names' prepared 
> by ICANN Staff. We would like to suggest that 
> the GNSO Council consider opening a public 
> comment forum on this document to allow for 
> community input on the issues outlined in the 
> paper as well as the proposed next steps. 
> Should the Council agree with this suggestion, 
> a time has been tentatively reserved at the 
> ICANN meeting in Senegal to organize a workshop 
> on the paper and solicit community input 
> (scheduled for Wednesday 26 October from 9.00 ­ 
> 10.30 local time). We look forward to receiving your feedback.
>
>
>         With best regards,
>
>
>
>         Marika