[Gnso-epdp-team] On the subject of ICANN's Bylaws...

[Alan Woods]

Dear Colleagues,

The RYSG would like to support and thank James for his excellent response.
We appreciate especially the reminder that the context in our discussions
is key and we must resist, however how inadvertently, layering our own
interpretations on top of settled, and defined concepts. Needless to say we
support his reasoning wholeheartedly.

We would further like to note 2 things. We do believe that this creep of
the legal vs natural discussion back into our agenda, as was already very
well responded to by Volker earlier today, is tending to be again, a large
distraction to our focus on other legitimate use cases that help establish
the process – At this point, and noting the calls for speed and structure
from all quarters, we would kindly request that the discussion on legal vs.
natural should only occur as part of the priority 2 discussions, as has
been agreed to by the group.

Secondly, we must also remind the group, that the point of these uses cases
is not so that we can create a cookie cutter responses in specific cases,
e.g. the security researcher or even in the case of the consumer. The past
2 use cases we have considered, although we appreciate the work that was
undertaken to present to us in such detail, both requests were ultimately
based on the same process of a 6(1)f. Our task must be to see-past the
window dressing and consider the similarities and commonalities of the
underlying process involved; this is after all, our goal. We seem to have
slipped back into scrambling to getting our ‘interests’ and our ‘claims’ on
the record for fear they somehow will not be accepted from consideration;
we would again like to assert, that in the interests of time and resources,
that the team should be prioritizing review of contrasting use cases, ones
that require differing approaches, to further anticipate the breadth of the
policy required, and not merely rehashing the same process from a different
angle.

Kind regards,

Alan Woods



[image: Donuts Inc.] <http://donuts.domains>
Alan Woods
Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc.
------------------------------
The Victorians,
15-18 Earlsfort Terrace
Dublin 2, County Dublin
Ireland

<https://www.facebook.com/donutstlds>   <https://twitter.com/DonutsInc>
<https://www.linkedin.com/company/donuts-inc>

Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may
include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Donuts
Inc. . Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than
the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.  If
you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to
this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 4:47 PM James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com> wrote:

> Good morning, Colleagues-
>
>
>
> During yesterday’s call, a few folks mentioned that ICANN’s Bylaws contain
> commitments to uphold “Competition” and “Consumer Choice/Consumer Trust”.
> These references to the Bylaws were offered in support of the proposed Use
> Case that RDS data should be a primary resource for consumers who are
> seeking to verify the operator of a website, or check the reputation of
> business, or to dispute a commercial transaction.
>
>
>
> For clarity, it’s worth noting that the predominant context for
> “competition” in ICANN’s Bylaws is specific to the domain name industry,
> esp. Registries and Registrars.  And this makes sense, given that the
> industry prior to ICANN had no concept of “competition” or “consumer
> choice”; all domain transactions were handled by a single provider.
>
>
>
> Additionally, mentions of “consumer protection”, “consumer choice”, and
> “consumer trust” within the Bylaws are contained within Section 4.6(d),
> which outlines the “Periodic Reviews”, and are an element of the 2012 New
> gTLD program.  These sections were ported to the Bylaws from the
> Affirmation of Commitments, and were drafted when many feared that new
> gTLDs would confuse consumers and undermine trust/confidence in the DNS.
>
>
>
> Taken together, it’s not correct to conclude that WHOIS/RDS data is
> intended to replace or preempt more widely recognized alternative tools for
> online consumers, like:
>
>    - SSL certificates, verified by Certificate Authorities (CA) and
>    supported by all modern browsers
>    - Trust certificates (issued by organizations like the Better Business
>    Bureau, Trustwave, McAffee, SiteLock, and card processors like
>    Visa/Mastercard)
>    - Reputation/review services like Google ratings, Yelp, and Facebook
>    or Amazon reviews, and
>    - The “About Us” or “Contact Us” or “Customer Support” links on
>    merchant websites, which are omnipresent for legitimate businesses and
>    required by law in many areas.
>
>
>
> But if this is still a point of divergence among the EPDP members, then
> perhaps we could consult ICANN Legal about the extent of their
> “Competition” and “Consumer Trust” mandate, and whether they believe ICANN
> is on the hook for the integrity & consumer satisfaction for all commercial
> activity taking place anywhere on the Internet.
>
>
>
> J.
>
>
>
> -------------
>
> *James Bladel*
>
> *GoDaddy*
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-epdp-team mailing list
> Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-epdp-team/attachments/20190812/6c547be6/attachment.html>