[ALAC] Fwd: Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory Board model

[Carlton Samuels]

This says the regulatory model to be employed is to raise a Policy Advisory
Board funded by registrants and from which the registry operator is
excluded.  One has to keep the sneaky fox out of the chicken coop.

So now, um....let's see how this breaks, shall we?  I will juxtapose just 2
of the attributes, taken directly from the Specifications document.

Under the sub-heading [General(?)] Guiding Principles, this:

"·         Ensure that registrant eligibility policies are inclusive,
transparent, pro-competitive and non-discriminatory and serve the affected
community and the general public, particularly Internet users of domain
registrant services"

And the second, under the sub-heading Function, this:

"·         To ensure that new gTLD applicants for regulated industry gTLDs
do not operate the registry in a manner that is antithetical to the
overriding goals of competition and innovation"

Quick, tell me what's wrong with these cupcakes?  And I suggest this is
before reflection on what .org and .com and etc... have become......and for
why!

Evan's idea of a trusted domain service is much smarter, more immediate and
likely to be less costly to the registrant.

-Carlton



==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl at gih.com>wrote:

> FYI -- please be so kind to find correspondence from Ron Andruff, member
> of the GNSO's Business Constituency (BC). Comments welcome.
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:        Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy
> Advisory
> Board model
> Date:   Wed, 25 Sep 2013 18:40:35 -0400
> From:   Ron Andruff <randruff at rnapartners.com>
> To:     <cherine.chalaby at icann.org>
> CC:     <Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>, <peter.nettlefold at dbcdd.gov.au>,
> "Olivier Crepin-Leblond " <ocl at gih.com>
>
>
>
> Dear Cherine,
>
>
>
> During the NGPC discussions with the Government Advisory Committee at
> ICANN Beijing concerns emerged about how to ensure that new gTLDs from
> regulated industries/professions act in the public interest, and how
> they can demonstrate that they are fully supportive of the interests of
> those who are affected as users, not merely as registrants, in such gTLDs.
>
>
>
> As you know, numerous applications for gTLDs that are representative of,
> or related to, regulated sectors were received by ICANN.  In recognizing
> the GAC's interest in how regulated industry/sensitive string applicants
> will adequately address core concerns about the public interest impact
> of their applications, I have been working with others to develop
> approaches that are high level and standardized to a great extent. This
> approach would allow applicants for gTLD strings associated with
> regulated industries and professions (or other high risk sectors, such
> as .KIDS, etc.) to demonstrate how they will develop, implement, and
> enforce policies for the registration practices and standards in their
> respective gTLDs.  In our view, these practices and standards should
> reflect the concerns of regulatory authorities, public interest
> organizations -- and most importantly, users -- to enable those gTLDs
> applicants to move ahead through the review process as expeditiously as
> possible.  An appropriate Policy Advisory Board (PAB) should be
> established prior to approval of a new gTLD application by ICANN, as the
> practices and standards it develops will determine acceptable
> registrants and uses.
>
>
>
> The attached Policy Advisory Board model documents provide a mechanism
> by which the GAC safeguard advice for protecting the public interest can
> be implemented to assure that, as Internet users interact with domains
> at new 'sensitive string' gTLDs associated with regulated industries and
> professions, they can be certain that the registrants are bona fide
> entities engaged in legitimate activities.  This PAB approach
> establishes a standard framework for appropriate safeguards at sensitive
> string gTLDs that allows the flexibility to ensure that each Policy
> Advisory Board is reflective of a particular string and the concerns
> associated with it. The safeguards can be fully developed and
> implemented through the establishment of balanced and inclusive Policy
> Advisory Boards that can develop appropriate registrant eligibility
> criteria and registry policies -- those policies, in turn, can be
> incorporated within enforceable Public Interest Commitments
> Specifications (PICS) for the registry.
>
>
>
> The focus of this model is establishing baseline criteria and a standard
> threshold of certainty for the public, and for governments, through a
> standardized approach to accountability and public interest. On behalf
> of my colleagues and myself, we hope it might inform the NGPC and GAC
> deliberations on PICS in a useful and productive way.
>
>
>
> I would welcome further discussion on this matter should you feel that
> would be of benefit to your Committee.
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> RA
>
>
>
> *Ron Andruff*
>
> *RNA Partners*
>
> *www.rnapartners.com* <http://www.rnapartners.com>**
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>