[ALAC] Policy Advisory Board model - Public Consultation

Wed Feb 5 19:58:01 UTC 2014

Hi Léon,

Linking this to the CCWG works I find this critical to the objective of
> defining who or what is ICANN in the scope of the Group’s Charter. May I
> suggest that this is taken into account on the next ccwg when reviewing the
> definition of what we understand as ICANN?
>

The two efforts are parallel, and have some common objectives, but quite
different in strategy.

Both seek to re-enforce the Multi-Stakeholder Model (MSM) as an effective
bottom-up mechanism for realizing ICANN's mandate to serve the public
interest.

   - The CCWG strives to bring together a broad coalition from across
   ICANN's community, to generally support and advocate for the strengths of
   the MSM. Even getting the definitions consistent and coherent has proved to
   be a challenge.

   - The Policy Advisory Board proposal brings together a subset of the
   ICANN community -- members of At-Large and the Business Constituency for
   now, possibly more to be added -- to call for a very specific mechanism to
   be implemented, one directly intended to serve the public interest (and by
   that I mean the suppliers and consumers of information and services over
   the Internet). In so doing its proponents seek to replace a flawed process
   in the current Applicant Guidebook, the "Public Interest Commitment" regime
   which has been analysed by many as a failed design and an un-enforceable
   "publicity stunt".

One effort is for general MSM advocacy, the other is focused on a very
specific (and well-defined) issue related to building public trust in a
small (but critical) portion of the gTLD expansion program. Both seek to
assert that the bottom-up process can succeed in creating policy within
ICANN that promotes the public good, and both risk being ignored or
dismissed by the ICANN Board and staff. However, they are taking radically
different paths to achieve their ends and have very different challenges
ahead. So for now I would suggest against mixing the two efforts. It may be
useful for each effort to be informed of the work of the other (and in fact
there is broad cross-membership between the two), but am not sure I would
go much further than that at this time.

Cheers,

- Evan

>
> Sorry to mix subjects but it seems like the perfect example of why we
> should be very careful on the task of defining the concept. Otherwise, the
> group’s work would be at stake if in the end ICANN, understood as staff and
> board, simply by-passes the group’s work and advice the same way it did on
> this case.
>
> all the best,
>
> León
>
>

> El 05/02/2014, a las 12:05, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> escribió:
>
> > 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
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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)
>
>

-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56