| Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n/a | Report of the GNSO WG on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition | Adopted | Evan Leibovitch (NARALO) | 07.02.2013 | 11.02.2013 | 21.02.2013 | 21.02.2013 | 27.02.2013 | 28.02.2013 | 01.03.2013 | n/a | AL/ALAC/CO/0213/1 |
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download the PDF below.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
If ratified by the ALAC, the text below will be sent as a Correspondence to Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the ICANN Board's New gTLD Program Committee, with a copy to Steve Crocker, Chair of the ICANN Board. This is not a statement of the ALAC to the Board.
"The ALAC welcomes the Board's efforts to consult its community on metrics for evaluating the benefits of the current gTLD expansion program.
As the entity chartered within ICANN to represent the viewpoint of Internet end-users, the ALAC has an acute interest in this issue. It is important to us that the metrics address the evaluation needs of the global Internet end users and not be biased towards those of the domain industry.
Towards that end, a number of At-Large members participated in the GNSO Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Working Group and made valuable contributions to the process. During the course of the work a number of metrics-related issues that were important to the At-Large were deemed by other members of the Working Group to be out of scope, too difficult to scope, or potentially embarrassing to new gTLD operators. Despite the objections of the At-Large members, a last minute change demanded by domain industry representatives was asserted as consensus.
While we acknowledge that the final report of the Working Group provides metrics that are useful to a number of ICANN constituencies, we believe it to be significantly incomplete. Implemented alone, we foresee that such efforts would not serve the needs of global Internet end users and could easily be dismissed as a mere public relations stunt on the part of ICANN.
As a response to address this imbalance in the proposed metrics, the ALAC is assembling a team to define a number of evaluation metrics that address matters of public trust in the new gTLD program as well as its effect on the broader domain namespace. Amongst the issues that the team will consider in its proposed metrics are:
- End-user confusion
- Growth in use of both domain-based and non-domain-based alternatives for Internet resource access
- Complaints to, and action taken by, police, regulatory agencies and advocacy groups
- Transparency of contact information and domain-allocation policies for all gTLDs
- Accuracy of new gTLD promotion to end users
- Technical issues encountered (including application support)
The team will present the end-user-centric metrics for ALAC approval at the ICANN46 Meeting in Beijing, which will then be forwarded to the Board as ALAC Advice."
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins.
The ALAC welcomes the Board's efforts to ask the community to create useful metrics to evaluate the public benefit in the expansion of gTLDs. Our members have been active participants in the GNSO Council Consumer Trust Working Group. This working group had created some useful measurements in its Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Working Group Final Advice Letter. However, we are concerned about both its development process, and the metrics reported, especially some of public benefit that were either missing or removed at the demand of contracted parties.
Metrics, by their nature, are neither policy nor implementation but evaluation. The primary intended beneficiaries of the Consumer Trust, Choice and Competition (CTCC)'s work are end users, who are represented within ICANN by At-large. Yet the task of creating the metrics was left to the GNSO, and as a result the WG report appears biased in the interests of ICANN'S own internal communities rather than the public interest. This bias is reflected not by what the WG requests, but what it leaves out:
Early in the WG's tenure, metrics that were important to At-large were deemed out of scope. We believe then and now that If the public is not well served by TLD expansion, it may choose to bypass new gTLDs completely. We therefore are interested not only in the choice between different TLDs, but between domain names and other methods of accessing Internet resources (search engines, QR codes, etc). Yet the instance of this serious end-user threat was judged by the WG - over the objections of At-Large members - to be hard for the WG to scope. The reference to alternate access methods in the Advice Letter's item 2.12 is less specific than other recommendations, isolates such metrics outside the gTLD expansion, and inexplicably recommends using subjective surveys even though objective access data may be available.
A last-minute intervention by domain industry representatives demanding removal of significant metrics related to "closed" gTLDs disturbed the consensus for the "final" report. The general public is largely unaware of the distinction between closed and open TLDs. We cannot see a distinction in objective. Moreover, we do not believe end users should be expected to learn it. As such, metrics must apply equally to all TLDs that are accessible to any group of end users. We note that the objections of At-Large members of the WG to this change were left out of a report that presents itself as a consensus. Indeed, we believe that with some extra discussion, a mutually-agreed result may have been achievable; however this was denied and the issue was closed over At-Large member objections. The ALAC is troubled by this development, both in the substance of the changes demanded and the abandonment of consensus. In the absence of consensus over changes, no change should have been made and the contracted parties view should have been presented as a minority statement.
We advise that the metrics ICANN undertakes must not be perceived as deliberately incomplete, lest they be seen as a publicity stunt intended to justify the gTLD expansion after the fact. To this end, they must include measurements that are of value to all Internet end users. As such, the omissions we see are, at best, missed opportunities and at worst, an expensive effort that shall eventually be dismissed as self serving. We specifically request that items 2.12 and 2.13 be considered, but modified from subjective surveys to objective measurements of consumer alternatives.
We recommend that ICANN accept the CTCC report as useful, but of limited public value in its current form. Its recommendations should be expanded. The informational concerns of global end-users must be better incorporated into any ICANN metrics initiative for it to serve its intended purposes.
24 Comments
Holly Raiche
I agree with Evan's anger at the process. The working group should have been seen as cross constituency, with everyone in the WG having to sign off on the final product. After all, this is about measurement of benefit to end users - us. That said, I'd like to be jst a bit more positive. After all, there were no measurements- now there are some. Are they of 'extremely limited' public value - or can we leave theword 'extremely' out? And that is a genuine question. My other question is with the statement that 'it was left to the GNSO - but earlier we said we were part of the committee. Weren't we part of the Committee - in which case, although the GNSO housed the WG, we were there. So isn't the real issue that we weren't part of the final decision - and should have been?
Hope that is of some help.
Evan Leibovitch
Hi Holly,
The wording I used is intended to express concern that the Board did not explicitly direct a cross-community group on the issue from the outset (as it has on some issues) – that would have demanded a full consensus. Instead it made this a GNSO effort and in effect gave those being evaluated complete control over the nature of the evaluation. ALAC approval was a "nice to have" rather than a requirement, And I believe that was an inappropriately low weight for our input given the intended audience for the results.
Indeed, regarding the "some metrics are better than none", I wouldn't even be so sure of that. If the selective slant of partial metrics is seen to be so biased as to be unreliable and/or dismissed, they will prove to be a wasted effort that may indeed have been worse than doing no metrics at all. In any case, please note that the statement does not reject those metrics that the WG agreed upon, but simply indicates that they are dangerously and needlessly incomplete.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Superb statement, Evan. Very strong on end user interest.
On metrics: Typically, metrics for evaluating policy impact are developed by the policy designers based on intended/desired outcomes. Post-implementation, independent evaluators add value by looking at both the pre-specified metrics as well as unintended consequences. If we apply this norm, whether or not it is correct that the GNSO is asked to develop the metrics depends on who the original policy designers were.
I think the statement is clear on the two key points that must be conveyed: (1) The ALAC input on end user concerns were disregarded at the WG level; (2) The ALAC is now escalating its concerns and objections as per its mandate and prerogatives.
Holly Raiche
Hi Evan
My misunderstanding. So we are a 'nice to have'. Now I agree with Rinalia - who agrees with you.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
"Yet the instance of this serious end-user threat was judged by the WG - over the objections of At-Large members - to be beyond the group's scope. The issue is noted in the preamble of the WG report but is not reflected in any metrics. "
Is is this incorrect? What about 2.13?
[2.13] Survey or Study to gauge the frequency with which users access internet resources via tools that do not reveal the TLD. (e.g. QR Codes, search results, apps, etc. that do not display URLs).
Evan Leibovitch
Based on input from Olivier I am suggesting the following edits, which are highlighted:
The ALAC welcomes the Board's efforts to create useful metrics to evaluate the public benefit in the expansion of gTLDs. Our members have been active participants in the GNSO Council Consumer Metrics Working Group(link). This working group had created some useful measurements in its final report (link). However, we are concerned about both its development process, and the metrics reported, especially some of public benefit that were either missing or removed at the demand of contracted parties.
Metrics, by their nature, are neither policy nor implementation but evaluation. The primary intended beneficiaries of the CCCI are end users, who are represented within ICANN by At-large. Yet the task of creating the metrics was left to the GNSO, and as a result the WG report is biased in the interests of ICANN'S own internal communities rather than the public interest. This bias is reflected not by what the WG requests, but what it leaves out:
Early in the WG's tenure, metrics that were important to At-large were deemed out of scope. We believe then and now that If the public is not well served by TLD expansion, it may choose to bypass new gTLDs completely. We therefore are concerned not only in the choice between different TLDs, but between domain names and other methods of accessing Internet resources (search engines, QR codes, etc). Yet the instance of this serious end-user threat was judged by the WG - over the objections of At-Large members - to be beyond the group's scope. The reference to alternate access methods in the Advice Letter's item 2.12 is less specific than other recommendations, isolates such metrics outside the gTLD expansion, and inexplicably recommends using subjective surveys even though objective access data may be available.
A last-minute intervention by domain industry representatives demanding removal of significant metrics related to "closed" gTLDs disturbed the consensus for the "final" report. The general public is largely unaware of the distinction between closed and open TLDs. We cannot see a distinction in objective. Moreover, we do not believe end users should be expected to learn it. As such, metrics must apply equally to all TLDs that are accessible to any group of end users. We note that the objections of At-Large members of the WG to this change were left out of a report that presents itself as a consensus. Indeed, we believe that with some extra discussion, a mutually-agreed result may have been achievable; however this was denied and the issue was closed over At-Large member objections. The ALAC is troubled by this development, both in the substance of the changes demanded and the abandonment of consensus.
We advise that the metrics ICANN undertakes must not be perceived as deliberately incomplete, lest they be seen as a publicity stunt intended to justify the gTLD expansion after the fact. To this end, they must include measurements that are of value to all Internet end users. As such, the omissions we see are, at best, missed opportunities and at worst, an expensive effort that shall eventually be dismissed as self serving. We specifically request that items 2.12 and 2.13 be considered, but modified from subjective surveys to objective measurements of consumer alternatives.
We recommend that ICANN accept the CCCI report as partially useful, but of
extremelylimited public value in its current form. The informational concerns of global end-users must be better incorporated into any ICANN metrics initiative for it to serve its intended purposes.Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Thanks Evan – my edits in RED.
The ALAC welcomes the Board's efforts to
createask the community to create useful metrics to evaluate the public benefit in the expansion of gTLDs. Our members have been active participants in the GNSO Council ConsumerMetricsTrust Working Group(link). This working group had created some useful measurements in its final report (link). However, we are concerned about both its development process, and the metrics reported, especially some of public benefit that were either missing or removed at the demand of contracted parties.Metrics, by their nature, are neither policy nor implementation but evaluation. The primary intended beneficiaries of the
CCCIConsumer Trust, Choice and Competition (CTCC)'s work are end users, who are represented within ICANN by At-large. Yet the task of creating the metrics was left to the GNSO, and as a result the WG reportisappears biased in the interests of ICANN'S own internal communities rather than the public interest. This bias is reflected not by what the WG requests, but what it leaves out:Early in the WG's tenure, metrics that were important to At-large were deemed out of scope. We believe then and now that If the public is not well served by TLD expansion, it may choose to bypass new gTLDs completely. We therefore are
concernedinterested not only in the choice between different TLDs, but between domain names and other methods of accessing Internet resources (search engines, QR codes, etc). Yet the instance of this serious end-user threat was judged by the WG - over the objections of At-Large members - to bebeyond the group'shard for the WG to scope. The reference to alternate access methods in the Advice Letter's item 2.12 is less specific than other recommendations, isolates such metrics outside the gTLD expansion, and inexplicably recommends using subjective surveys even though objective access data may be available.A last-minute intervention by domain industry representatives demanding removal of significant metrics related to "closed" gTLDs disturbed the consensus for the "final" report. The general public is largely unaware of the distinction between closed and open TLDs. We cannot see a distinction in objective. Moreover, we do not believe end users should be expected to learn it. As such, metrics must apply equally to all TLDs that are accessible to any group of end users. We note that the objections of At-Large members of the WG to this change were left out of a report that presents itself as a consensus. Indeed, we believe that with some extra discussion, a mutually-agreed result may have been achievable; however this was denied and the issue was closed over At-Large member objections. The ALAC is troubled by this development, both in the substance of the changes demanded and the abandonment of consensus. In the absence of consensus over changes, no change should have been made and the contracted parties view should have been presented as a minority statement.
We advise that the metrics ICANN undertakes must not be perceived as deliberately incomplete, lest they be seen as a publicity stunt intended to justify the gTLD expansion after the fact. To this end, they must include measurements that are of value to all Internet end users. As such, the omissions we see are, at best, missed opportunities and at worst, an expensive effort that shall eventually be dismissed as self serving. We specifically request that items 2.12 and 2.13 be considered, but modified from subjective surveys to objective measurements of consumer alternatives.
We recommend that ICANN accept the
CCCICTCC report aspartiallyuseful, but ofextremelylimited public value in its current form. Its recommendations should be expanded. The informational concerns of global end-users must be better incorporated into any ICANN metrics initiative for it to serve its intended purposes.Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Clearly I'm biased as one who contributed (as OCL did) to most (if not all) of the work done by this (once to be cross community but then only GNSO-WG and who co-chaired several of the PUBLIC Meetings held on the issues during the draft development process... BUT I'm totally supporting the approach Olivier has made in the draft text and I draw attention from any one who is interested in this to also see my replies to the misplaced discussion (IMO) note misplaced not necessarily misdirected to comments below...
Jean-Jacques Subrenat
Thank you Evan for the excellent analysis and wording. I also agree with the remarks and corrections by Holly, Rinalia, Olivier.
But there is, IMO, a misfit between the gravity of our findings, and the not very exigent conclusions we seem to draw.
Findings. The serious concerns expressed by the At-Large were, to say the least, not adequately reflected. The method used allowed some in the WG to impose an outcome which did not properly reflect the depth of these concerns. This result is all the more disturbing since this is not about, say, fine tuning a security issue understandable only by a small group of technicians, but is about the general public interest, at the very heart of the corporation's accountability.
Conclusions. On several occasions, I have witnessed in ICANN (yes, and in the ALAC) a strange pattern: the more volunteers are concerned about something and willing to vociferate, the less they finally demand of the corporation in terms of the final result. If we are really convinced that fundamental issues are not being addressed and righted, then surely the correct attitude is to reject the current conclusion of the exercise, say clearly why it is skewed, and set forth the criteria below which it is not acceptable for the ALAC. This would be more consistent with the validity, and seriousness, of our concerns.
Jean-Jacques.
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Thank you for your comments, Jean-Jacques.
Rejecting the current conclusions of the exercise, based on the opinion that it does not go far enough is not constructive. The WG has drafted a report detailing a set of metrics which it proposes be used for tracking the success of the new gTLD program. The opinion expressed in the ALAC statement is that whilst the ALAC welcomes the metric, they do not go as far as was hoped. At this late stage, rejecting the report altogether would be equivalent to rejecting the concept of metric to measure the success of the new gTLD program and that would definitely not be in the public interest.
One has to remember that several At-Large members worked in this WG and the concern is about a minor percentage of the metrics, with the vast majority of the metrics being useful.
Evan Leibovitch
Hi Jean-Jacques,
As some observers know, I have personally preferred to reject the result of the WG. I have made the case myself that the current partial result may be worse than doing nothing.
As already indicated in the statement, metrics are not policy and not even implementation. Putting this effort in the hands of the GNSO, most of which has a financial stake in the success (and perception of success) of the gTLD expansion, was a major and fundamental strategic mistake. Arguably, this very act – of putting the industry in charge of measuring its own success with a pretence of consumer perspective – calls into question the Board's reliability in protecting the interests of end-users. The results of this WG, and the treatment of the At-Large input, indicate exactly the kind of self-serving bias that is to be expected when vested interests essentially get to determine their own evaluations.
There are indeed some useful metrics being suggested. But those that survived the industry vetting are most likely to produce positive-sounding results, through metrics that primarily exist to serve buyers and sellers of domains rather than consumers. Metrics with potentially negative results were generally either rejected, never introduced, or watered down to the point of uselessness. I disagree with Olivier that the concern is about a minor percentage of the metrics. While the specific disruption of consensus was over a small number of items, the entire direction of the WG from the start indicated a pro-industry bias that indeed colours (taints?) the entire approach.
Yes, a number of At-Large members had considerable investments of time and effort in this working group, which may explain the reluctance to acknowledge that it is probably better to do nothing than produce metrics that will be widely seen outside ICANN as a foolish exercise in self-justification. IMO our core advice should be that this effort should be rejected, and replaced by putting the measurement of consumer trust in the hands of a suitably independent body – perhaps a national consumer association or protection agency – with established trust and experience in such measurements. At very least, leadership of the effort should have been put in the hands of the organizations that exist within ICANN primarily to protect the interests of consumers – the ALAC and GAC – with industry acting as observers and advisors rather than wielding veto power.
I myself am perfectly happy to put forward a more assertive statement that confidently advances the end-user point of view as expressed above.
Jean-Jacques Subrenat
Dear Olivier, Evan and All,
an alternative to Evan's courageous position (which I fully support) would be to accept as wisdom this opinion of one of the thinkers of the late 20th century, “Principle is okay up to a certain point, but principle doesn´t do any good if you lose the nomination” (remark attributed to Dick Cheney).
In ICANN, situations of conflict of interest began as embarrassing exceptions, but now tend to be brandished as badges of hard-earned realism, as opposed to the lofty but too vague principle of genuine accountability. It is time to state clearly, as Evan does, that "putting this effort in the hands of the GNSO, most of which has a financial stake in the success (and perception of success) of the gTLD expansion, was a major and fundamental strategic mistake". Whether this critical position is "helpful" or not is completely beside the point, as we are faced here with one of the most telling exercises in accountability that ICANN has ever faced, and on a topic which, far from being abstract, potentially weighs dozens of millions of dollars, and can shape the future of Internet governance.
For these reasons, and others so ably presented by Evan, I would call for either of the following:
In either case, the ALAC position could be usefully forwarded by our Chair to the Chair of the Board and the Chairs of ACs and SOs.
Rinalia Abdul Rahim
Dear Jean-Jacques and Evan,
I would support an ALAC Statement "with the same explanations, and a call for a new process with fair representation, and a significantly improved process, for a new and unbiased report which would take due account of the general public interest."
This action conveys our message, is constructive and urges ICANN to continue a worthy pursuit, but with the right structure, which is the correct way of doing it.
The options that Jean-Jacques presented are not mutually exclusive though. Both could be done (i.e., the ALAC could distance itself from the report and still do a statement urging for it to be done right.) Doing both will convey a very strong message. But, if we only do one, I would go for the statement for the reasons stated above.
Best regards,
Rinalia
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
Well at least the Do Nothing option is bak to the task at hand for the ALAC where under the Board Resolution Adopted on: 10 December 2010
Whereas, ICANN has committed to promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the Affirmation of Commitments
Whereas, if and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN has committed to organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.
Resolved, the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011.
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6
The time has yes drifted well on from the intended completion date but that effects all the AC's and SO's asked to give input... The ALAC has in front of it ( on this page ) text and proposed modifications to the text to be used (if ratified by ALAC vote or not if not) as an ALAC Statement and therefore able to be sent as advice to the Board in response to the call for it i Dec 2010 as outlined in the Resolution above...
SO ALAC you should in my VERY BIASED view get ON WITH YOUR JOB and accept the draft text (or not) and ratify it OR NOT and then (if ratified) send that as Advice in response to the call to do so OR NOT!
OF COURSE you may also wish to create totally new text ( and one assumes properly bottom up and publicly reviewed as well as very specific advice on these metrics, definitions and measures of what is meant by the terms etc., and any proposals for appropriate analytic process and baselines measures etc., in line with the request and I assume in some sort of short order so it might be at least vaguely relevant and timely to when the AOC mandated Review Team on this matter is formed "... that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice..." THAT would be just fine as well...
Should the ALAC decide to not use reference or support any of the material that was an outcome of the GNSO-WG that was the only specific AC or SO effort to respond to the Board resolution by the formation of a open to the ICANN Community WG that is fine to at least the Board has that advice and one hopes it might therefore instruct staff to put into place some of the data collections and baseline metrics collection processes so that the role of the eventual Review Team is assisted and facilitated but if not well so be it... Tis there choice and decision... At least some of us can rest assured that to the best extent possible the interests of At-Large were represented and debated during the development of what consensus outcomes were created in the process and of course the WG report also holds important minority reports and opinions... All of which in my view is a good thing...
Holly Raiche
What about calling for a reinstatement of the metrics that were developed by a WG with GNSO AND ALAC members. The rationale is clear: if the 'success' of the gTLDs are to be measured, those measurements MUST include measurements that look at the end user benefit - which is what new gTLDs are supposed to be about anyway.
So let's add a third dot point to JJS's alternatives: a reinstatement of the metrics that have been omitted, with the very strong statement that the new gTLDs are supposed to be about end user benefit - which is what the metrics were developed to calcuate. Otherwise, we go to JJS's two alternatives (either or both).
In any case, the statement must be preferenced by a clear preamble that the WG should have officially been a cross constituency WG from day one - for the reasons everyone has set out.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
We need to remember I think that when one distils this all down to "the necessities" all that has to be dine is that a Review Team be created "...that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice....": any response to the Board Resolution of Dec 2010 and input on the matter is all very nice possibly useful bit in no way binding upon that Review Team to use or take notice of... The Board in 2010 realised (quite reasonably IMO) that the terms "competition, consumer trust and consumer choice." themselves might need clarification and agreement upon from the ICANN Community and that additionally any 'groiup think' advise on measures and metrics would be possibly useful as well... Nothing More... Th Review Team will happen and the examination of these things will occur all that might differ will be the usefulness of the tools they have to work with and their ease of use...
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Rinalia, Holly, Jean-Jacques, Evan,
I am really concerned where this discussion is going because it is unfortunately straying off the facts.
Rinalia would support a statement including a call for a new process with fair representation.
This is exactly what the Board asked for in 2010:
Board Resolution on the Initiation of the PDP:
Adopted on: 10 December 2010
Whereas, ICANN has committed to promoting competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the Affirmation of Commitments
Whereas, if and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have been in operation for one year, ICANN has committed to organize a review that will examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.
Resolved, the ICANN Board requests advice from the ALAC, GAC, GNSO and ccNSO on establishing the definition, measures, and three year targets for those measures, for competition, consumer trust and consumer choice in the context of the domain name system, such advice to be provided for discussion at the ICANN International Public meeting in San Francisco from 13-18 March 2011.
http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-10dec10-en.htm#6
The GNSO created the WG and issued a call for members to join.
WG details are on:
http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/inactive/2012/consumer-trust
We relayed this call for attendance on our ALAC lists – and only 4 people ever turned up on the 25 calls, two regularly and two irregularly, despite several updates during the ALAC meetings since Nov 2011, several updates during the ALAC calls and several calls for comments. On a couple of occasions, I even asked the ALAC whether the ALAC was interested in signing the charter thus making the WG a cross comunity WG? The response was that due to the use of the term "consumer" and not "user", the ALAC was not interested in joining.
Involvement from the ALAC in this WG did not increase whatsoever despite calls to have more members.
Attendance records: WG Attendance Log
How can it then be justified that, due to the lack of interest from ALAC members, the process did not have fair representation? Then, looking at the attendance logs, do you maintain that the process did not have fair representation? Complaining to the Board about lack of representation is the best way to make the ALAC irrelevant because this is the ALAC's own fault.
Last, but not least, I also draw your attention to the ALAC's last statement about the CCTC's work:
http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-08sep12-en.htm
It showed the ALAC's support, with one abstention from Sala.
The statement that you propose, asking for a call for a new process with fair representation would effectively be a U-turn, which would surprise everybody and be very detrimental to the ALAC's growth. How would you explain this to the ICANN community?
Evan Leibovitch
Well, I for one am delighted to see this kind of conversation going on. Indeed, it is long overdue.
Yes, it is true that the Board called upon multiple stakeholders to provide advice. But the way that advice was assembled, in retrospect, turned out to have been in error.
Instead of a forming a cross-constituency working group created that would have demanded consensus from all participating groups – or creating our own advice independently – the ALAC chose instead to send participants in a GNSO working group in which its unique input was, in the end, largely rejected. At-Large leadership dismissed the reasonable objections of our own constituency, that end-users ought not to be constantly be referred to within ICANN by the business-centric term "consumers". In so doing, we voluntarily ceded control of the agenda on an issue which directly impacts end-users more than any other ICANN stakeholder group. And we are now paying the price for that poor decision.
So what do we do now? Validate that mistake, or work to fix it?
Perhaps we should choose to blame ourselves for placing our trust in a GNSO process that, in the end, exercised a blatant veto over multiple issues that were important to us. But I prefer to look forward than backwards, and the calls by Rinalia and Jean-Jacques for a renewed approach to this issue – one that is at least partially driven by ICANN's end-user constituency and demands its consensus – is well advised.
We also have something of a luxury of time on this issue. Metrics won't even be started until a significant number of gTLD delegations has been in place for a while. So if we ask for some more time to properly re-evaluate, we can still produce results well in advance of metrics needing to be done.
I find the complaint about the lack of At-Large involvement in the GNSO working group to be unconvincing. Substantial At-Large statements on major issues – statements that have had a major impact on ALAC policy advice over the years – have been crafted by smaller groups than the At-Large numbers involved in the CCTC group. Furthermore, had this issue been tackled as an At-Large WG (or within an existing one), it might have been done in a manner and on a schedule that would have been less intimidating and more hospitable to wider At-Large involvement.
And finally, on the need to to explain our approval of the CCTC's interim work but rejection of its final report, that is the easiest to answer. When approving the interim work, the ALAC may have still had faith that its needs might yet be incorporated in the final. That faith has since proven to be badly misplaced – and, in fact explicitly repudiated – so remedial measures are reasonably called for.
Meanwhile, I will continue to reject the assertion that something is better than nothing in all cases. In this particular case, implementation of the CCTC final report – without the additional metrics demanded by At-Large – would be far worse for ICANN than doing nothing at all, for reasons previously stated.
I am heartened and encouraged by the support by others for a renewed end-user-centric approach to evaluation of the gTLD program. It is not exaggerating to state that in this case, relying on the GNSO process has failed us. We should not feel chastised for acknowledging that and seeking to building a path forward, nor should we feel required to choose between "growth" and fulfilling our roles as At-Large leadership.
Cheryl Langdon-Orr
See my comment above...
And you an of course be will prepared to try and pitch this to the Review Team ( IF they ask for such input) at the time its work takes off OR of course respond with ALAC advice that is truly independent of the GNSO's CCTC's outcomes ALAC has the right to put advice forward to the Board on issues at any time... BUT for me I'm glad that there was strong and resilient input from At-Large and the ALAC into the CCTC report... Which I trust will be of some use to the Board and the future Review Team and of not 'whatever will be will be'...
I totally reject the concept that such valuable input was in any way a mistake. and a debate on the past with the clarity of hind site is of course useful and stimulating but really does little to find a way for ALAC to respond to ( OR NOT) the call to it for Advice with in the Dec 2010 resolution referred to several times on this page... Aspects of these comments of course could ( and perhaps should) be pursued and certainly it appears new pathways forward are being seen as desirable to explore but THIS SPACE is about a set of Draft text and possible ratification thereof... Part of the rhetoric here really has me thinking ALAC and At-Large are being very efficiently lured and tempted into the "never Let The Facts Get Into The Way of a GOOD Debate" trap. ** SIGH**
Holly Raiche
I hesitate to add to what is already a fairly lengthy discussion and not all of it about metrics. Could we please pick up on the question that Evan asked: So what do we do now?
Earlier, I suggested we ask for a reinstatement of the metrics that were developed with ALAC representation present and voted on by the ALAC. Olivier's suggestion (below) is close to that, and does both acknowledge that the final product was not what we approved, and that if consumer trust is to be a part of the metrics, they should be included.
We specifically request that items 2.12 and 2.13 be considered, but modified from subjective surveys to objective measurements of consumer alternatives.
So, after voicing what are our legitimate concerns, why not strongly press for metrics that we believe will address our concerns - using OLC's language?
And one point: I am not sure it is productive to point out who was at meetings or not. There are so many occasions when we trust one or two of us (all too often, it is Alan) to put in the hard work and advise the rest of us. I'd hate to move to a model where attendance records replace the trust we have in the competency of each other.
Evan Leibovitch
Hi Holly,
Here is a suggested plan of action, based on the comments I've read so far:
And, by the way, I think that we ought to maintain the explicit advocacy of the term "end-user" as the target of our activity. The GNSO WG mistakenly blended both end users and registrants in its definition of "comsumer", and its report suffered as a result. The Board and GNSO's mistaken choice to incorrectly refer to end-users by the commercially-biased term "consumers" does not mean we must repeat the mistake.
We are, after all, not the "Consumers Advisory Committee".
Holly Raiche
Hi Evan
Thanks for the detailed response. I probably would tone down the language to the Board (only a tiny bit) but at least say the vote we took was on the metrics we agreed with - not the final result, and that it will be critical for the evaluation of gTLDs to have metrics about consumer/user trust.
We can then develop the metrics you suggest (noting Olivier's suggestions as well) through the suggested subteam - telling both the GNSO and Board that it is what we are doing
Holly
Evan Leibovitch
One more stab based on previous input.
The ALAC welcomes the Board's efforts to consult its community on metrics for evaluating the benefits of the current gTLD expansion program.
As the entity chartered within ICANN to represent the viewpoint of Internet end-users, the ALAC has an acute interest in this issue. It is important to us that the metrics address the evaluation needs of the global Internet end users and not be biased towards those of the domain industry.
Towards that end, a number of At-Large members participated in the GNSO Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition Working Group and made valuable contributions to the process. During the course of the work a number of metrics-related issues that were important to the At-Large were deemed by other members of the Working Group to be out of scope, too difficult to scope, or potentially embarrassing to new gTLD operators. Despite the objections of the At-Large members, last minute change demanded by domain industry representatives was asserted as consensus.
While we acknowledge that the final report of the Working Group provides metrics that are useful to a number of ICANN constituencies, we believe it to be significantly incomplete. Implemented alone, we foresee that such efforts would not serve the needs of global Internet end users and could easily be dismissed as a mere public relations stunt on the part of ICANN.
As a response to address this imbalance in the proposed metrics, the ALAC is assembling a team to define a number of evaluation metrics that address matters of public trust in the new gTLD program as well as its effect on the broader domain namespace. Amongst the issues that the team will consider in its proposed metrics are:
The team will present the end-user-centric metrics for ALAC approval at the ICANN46 Meeting in Beijing, which will then be forwarded to the Board as ALAC Advice.
Thomas Lowenhaupt
I'm a bit unclear on the scope of the discussion here, but I'd like to participate in developing metrics for evaluating new TLDs.
With the likelihood that 1,000+ new TLDs will be issued in this round, it seems the evaluation process will require a substantial effort. And with TLDs setting different goals, I suspect that a categorization will prove most effective in undertaking the task in a meaningful way. I'd like to participate in developing metrics for a narrow slice of the new TLDs, those for cities.
Recently I was appointed to a .NYC Advisory Board that "is to address community concerns as well as provide input towards the policies and strategic launch of the .nyc Top-Level Domain." While the Board is in the formative stages, I expect that identifying meaningful metrics will be an important part of our work. Only through using data and metrics for setting goals, assessing progress, and ensuring accountability can we expect our city's TLD to fulfill its promise. I presume other cities will be following a similar course and would like to see if we can find a way to engage users in identifying, selecting, and contributing to the development of these metrics.
Tom