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

Mon Aug 12 16:44:36 UTC 2019

Alan, your advice seems reasonable, but I am not sure I am understanding what you are suggesting in actual practice.

Regarding:

“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. “
What should we have done differently, and how would you propose to handle it going forward?  Some specificity would be helpful.

From: Gnso-epdp-team <gnso-epdp-team-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of Alan Woods
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 1:37 AM
To: James M. Bladel <jbladel at godaddy.com>
Cc: gnso-epdp-team at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-epdp-team] On the subject of ICANN's Bylaws...

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

[Donuts Inc.]<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdonuts.domains&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626402591&sdata=bY7w%2FsK2UTPFQYEf2iLx2yVF6w2VW7UM4JnXpMUYezQ%3D&reserved=0>
Alan Woods
Senior Compliance & Policy Manager, Donuts Inc.
________________________________
The Victorians,
15-18 Earlsfort Terrace
Dublin 2, County Dublin
Ireland

[http://storage.googleapis.com/signaturesatori/icons/facebook.png]<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fdonutstlds&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626412589&sdata=1qqNBMIJ9kfZu5W0Q5bULL4eYSq2bPU0L77ALelzLko%3D&reserved=0>  [http://storage.googleapis.com/signaturesatori/icons/twitter.png] <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FDonutsInc&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626412589&sdata=jKxFPqYxGiMNXl7sVJiVRgtTMjSXTAi3L3AKQkBp%2FAQ%3D&reserved=0>   [http://storage.googleapis.com/signaturesatori/icons/linkedin.png] <https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%2Fcompany%2Fdonuts-inc&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626422583&sdata=JG3A0eEfTx9xg4Ci6vh96pss%2BO3fwEbZkKJrJ5V4paY%3D&reserved=0>

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<mailto: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<mailto:Gnso-epdp-team at icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-epdp-team<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgnso-epdp-team&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626422583&sdata=LIFN7siwYgQk9b%2BzyXyZQ47JNufocJIwcFY7abQKzmg%3D&reserved=0>
_______________________________________________
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<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Fpolicy&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626432576&sdata=DF%2BLEtnb323utQ1fT9nL6eVFYZ9gAdRphzScNzkSGMI%3D&reserved=0>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icann.org%2Fprivacy%2Ftos&data=02%7C01%7Cmarksv%40microsoft.com%7Cadd40309eb834ff2ca2608d71f005605%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637011958626432576&sdata=SJzL5d3AZF76VC1DGldlAuCC2ZWBQ9acpxWIjun3%2BNA%3D&reserved=0>). 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/d53c12f9/attachment-0001.html>