[ALAC] Fwd: FW: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation

Wed Feb 5 18:05:11 UTC 2014

As another of the signatories, I am more than a 
bit discouraged that such an issue of public 
interest was seemingly fully delegated to a staff 
function without due action by the Board.

I find particularly disturbing, the following 
excerpt from the minutes of the NGPC discussing the issue:

>The Chair asked for input on merits of an 
>alternative proposal (the Policy Advisory Board 
>Model) submitted by a community member on how to 
>implement the Category 1 Safeguards. Christine 
>Willett and Dan Halloran provided an overview of 
>the Policy Advisory Board model, and noted that 
>the model represents a departure from the role 
>of the registry operator as contemplated in the 
>Applicant Guidebook and Registry Agreement.
>
>The Committee considered whether it was more 
>appropriate for individual registry operators to 
>implement a Policy Advisory Board model, as 
>opposed to ICANN imposing such a model on all of 
>the registry operators for strings listed in the 
>Category 1 Safeguard advice. Dan noted that some 
>individual applications already include 
>structures similar to the Policy Advisory Board model.
>
>Heather indicated that the Policy Advisory Board 
>proposal was circulated to the GAC and it may 
>generate discussion during the Committee's 
>upcoming meeting with the GAC. Ray Plzak 
>suggested that the Committee be on the same page 
>when approached by the community about this issue.

The PAB is indeed a departure of the model 
envisioned by the Applicant Guidebook. THAT IS WHY IT WAS PROPOSED!

Alan

At 05/02/2014 11:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

>As a signatory to the original letter and having contributed to its text, I
>share Olivier's exasperation at how quickly and cavalierly this bottom-up,
>innovative proposal has been dismissed.
>
>I had eventually come around to the view of Carlton Samuels and others that
>the ICANN Public Interest Committment regime is little but a toothless
>public relations stunt. The PAB proposal seems like one that could have a
>real effect, one that is sufficiently independent of ICANN to have real
>credibility.
>
>I invite At-Large members to look at the proposal -- the original letter
>from members of At-Large and the Business
>Community<<https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en>https://www.icann.org/en/news/correspondence/andruff-et-al-to-chalaby-27jan14-en>--
>and offer feedback. IMO, this is something worth advancing.
>
>- Evan
>
>
>
>
>
>On 5 February 2014 10:44, Olivier MJ 
>Crepin-Leblond 
><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ocl at gih.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear ALAC Colleagues,
> >
> > further to the email below and the letter that was sent to the Board to
> > call for a Public Consultation about the proposal of a Policy Advisory
> > Board model, please be so kind to find attached the (very fast) response
> > received from Christine Willett, Vice President of the gTLD Operations.
> >
> > In summary:
> > It's a "negative" with regards to a Public Consultation.
> > It's "optional" if registry operators want to voluntarily implement such
> > a model. Actually, it's a less than "optional"... it's a "not prohibited".
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Olivier
> >
> > On 29/01/2014 16:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> > > Dear ALAC colleagues,
> > >
> > > please be so kind to find below and attached, a letter which was sent by
> > > Ron Andruff to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN New gTLD Program
> > > Committee (NGPC) requesting a Public Consultation to take place about
> > > the Policy Advisory Board model proposal which the ALAC has supported in
> > > the past.
> > >
> > > Due to very short time-lines for a reply and since the letter asks for a
> > > Public Consultation in which the ALAC will be able to expand on the
> > > shortcomings of the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) which we have
> > > already pointed out but were ignored, the ALAC Leadership Team (ALT) has
> > > given me the green light to sign the letter on their behalf. You'll also
> > > find a couple of people from our community co-signing in their
> > > individual capacity too. Indeed, many of the PICs filed are so weak,
> > > including clauses reserving the right for the gTLD Registry to ignore
> > > the commitments altogether, that this process is being grossly
> > > mishandled and the ALAC need to voice its concerns.
> > > *
> > > *Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> > > ALAC Chair
> > > **
> > >
> > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
> > > *Sent:* Monday, January 27, 2014 18:36
> > > *To:* 
> '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby 
> at icann.org'
> > > *Cc:* 
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden 
> at ic.gc.ca; 
> '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold 
> at dbcdd.gov.au'; 'Alan
> > > Greenberg'; 'Evan Leibovitch'; Marilyn Cade 
> (<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>marilynscade 
> at hotmail.com)
> > > *Subject:* RE: Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation
> > > *Importance:* High
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Dear Cherine,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Following on from discussions held in Beijing and Buenos Aires with a
> > > broad cross-section of the ICANN community, we understand that
> > > SGs/ACs/Constituencies want to provide public comments on how ICANN
> > > manages the proper roll out of regulated industries/sensitive string new
> > > gTLDs.  The concept of the Policy Advisory Boards is currently being
> > > circulated more broadly within the community so the purpose of this
> > > email and attached letter is to follow up with the NGPC on this matter
> > > in support of the GAC Buenos Aires Communique reference to Public
> > > Interest Commitment Specifications (PICS).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > We look forward to your response in due course.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Thank you for your consideration.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > RA
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *Ron Andruff*
> > >
> > > *RNA Partners*
> > >
> > > *www.rnapartners.com <http://www.rnapartners.com> *
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *From:* Ron Andruff [mailto:randruff at rnapartners.com]
> > > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 25, 2013 18:41
> > > *To:* 
> '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>cherine.chalaby 
> at icann.org'
> > > *Cc:* 
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>Heather.Dryden 
> at ic.gc.ca <mailto:Heather.Dryden at ic.gc.ca>;
> > > 
> '<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>peter.nettlefold 
> at dbcdd.gov.au'; Olivier Crepin-Leblond
> > > *Subject:* Regulated industry/sensitive new gTLDs PICS - Policy Advisory
> > > Board model
> > > *Importance:* High
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > > 
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC 
> at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> > >
> > > At-Large Online: 
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > > ALAC Working Wiki:
> > 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > 
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC 
> at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki:
> > 
> <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+%28ALAC>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >
>
>
>
>--
>Evan Leibovitch
>Toronto Canada
>
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Sk: evanleibovitch
>Tw: el56