FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
11 December 2018
Introduction
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) appreciates the considerable amount of effort that has clearly gone into the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT)'s analysis and Report. As the principal voice of end users, within the ICANN community, the ALAC are especially interested in the findings and recommendations from the CCT review, particularly in the areas of Choice and Trust.
As specified in our comments to the interim report, the ALAC is supportive of all of the recommendations in this report, including the new ones relating to the unfortunate findings regarding DNS abuse in the New gTLDs. It is also worth reiterating that the ALAC do not share a sense of urgency when it comes to subsequent procedures but instead believe the community should address all of the deficiencies in the 2012 program before accepting additional applications.
The first recommendation, surrounding the improved attention to data collection and use in policy development inside ICANN is perhaps the most critical recommendation in the report given the extent to which anecdotal evidence pervades most community discussions. The unavailability of data and a culture unused to its role continues to hamper policy development another discussions within ICANN.
While controversial, the recommendation to discuss a potential DADRP has merit given the high rates of abuse in some new gTLDs and the apparent lack of tools at the disposal of Contract Compliance to address it. The CCT recommendations include such tools but some sort of backstop in the form of a 3rd party adjudication mechanism that looks at a registry holistically might be necessary.
It is also clear that better consistency is needed in the application evaluation and review process, including such issues as string confusion and review by the advisory committees including SSAC, GAC and ALAC.
Finally, the ALAC continues to believe in the importance of the gTLD program’s expansion into communities and underserved regions (the so-called "Global South").
The ALAC provides its continued support for the recommendations that we articulated in our previous comments, but wants to bring particular focus on the following recommendations:
- Recommendation 1 concerning Chapter 5 Data-Driven Analysis
Support. As ICANN is increasingly attempting to develop its path forward to comply with international privacy regimes via the EPDP and the Access Model, developing a workable system for data collection is preeminent but should not distract from the GAC’s work in this regard.
- Recommendations 8 - 10 concerning Chapter 7 - Consumer Choice
Support, but the CCT should defer Recommendation 10 (about privacy protections) until the recommendations from the EPDP and Access Model are finalized.
- Recommendations 11 - 13 concerning Chapter 8 - Consumer Trust
Support. The expectation by users is an essential feature for consumer trust. The ICANN community must instill trust between the relationship between the name and the website content to ensure internet users are accessing the content they seek.
- Recommendations 14 - 25 concerning Chapter 9 - Safeguards
Support. A healthy DNS system relies on competition and diversity of companies, big and small, applying for domains. The ALAC believes these recommendations are necessary to accomplish that goal.
- Recommendations 29-31, 32, 33, and 34-35 in Chapter 10 - Evaluation
Support. Transparency is a prerequisite to maintaining the integrity of consumer trust in the DNS system and the ALAC believes the following provisions get us closer to that objective.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
26 November 2018 - Jonathan Zuck, EE edits in red
Introduction
The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) appreciates the considerable amount of effort that has clearly gone into the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team (CCT)'s analysis and Report (the report). As the principal voice of end users, within the ICANN community, the ALAC are especially interested in the findings and recommendations from the CCT review, particularly in the areas of Choice and Trust.
As specified in our comments to the interim report, the ALAC is supportive of all of the recommendations in this report, including the new ones relating to the unfortunate findings regarding DNS abuse in the New gTLDs. It is also worth reiterating that the ALAC do not share a sense of urgency when it comes to subsequent procedures but instead believe the community should address all of the deficiencies in the 2012 program before accepting additional applications.
The first recommendation, surrounding the improved attention to data collection and use in policy development inside ICANN is perhaps the most critical recommendation in the report given the extent to which anecdotal evidence pervades most community discussions. The unavailability of data and a culture unused to its role continues to hamper policy development another discussions within ICANN.
While controversial, the recommendation to discuss a potential DADRP has merit given the high rates of abuse in some new gTLDs and the apparent lack of tools at the disposal of Contract Compliance to address it. The CCT recommendations include such tools but some sort of backstop in the form of a 3rd party adjudication mechanism that looks at a registry holistically might be necessary.
It is also clear that better consistency is needed in the application evaluation and review process, including such issues as string confusion and review by the advisory committees including SSAC, GAC and ALAC.
Finally, the ALAC continues to believe in the importance of the gTLD program’s expansion into communities and underserved regions (the so-called "Global South").
The ALAC provides its continued support for the recommendations that we articulated in our previous comments, but wants to bring particular focus on the following recommendations:
- Recommendation 1 concerning Chapter 5 Data-Driven Analysis
Support. As ICANN is increasingly attempting to develop its path forward to comply with international privacy regimes via the EPDP and the Access Model, developing a workable system for data collection is preeminent but should not distract from the GAC’s work in this regard.
- Recommendations 8 - 10 concerning Chapter 7 - Consumer Choice
Support, but the CCT should defer Recommendation 10 (about privacy protections) until the EPDP and Access Model are finalized.
- Recommendations 11 - 13 concerning Chapter 8 - Consumer Trust
Support. The expectation by users is an essential feature for consumer trust. The ICANN community must instill trust between the relationship between the name and the website content to ensure internet users are accessing the content they seek.
- Recommendations 14 - 25 concerning Chapter 9 - Safeguards
Support. A healthy DNS system relies on competition and diversity of companies, big and small, applying for domains. The ALAC believes these recommendations are necessary to accomplish that goal.
- Recommendations 29-31, 32, 33, and 34-35 in Chapter 10 - Evaluation
Support. Transparency is a prerequisite to maintaining the integrity of consumer trust in the DNS system and the ALAC believes the following provisions get us closer to that objective.
Draft for Discussion posted 26 Nov 2018 (EE edits in red).
Holly Raiche posted comments (06 Nov 2018):
The ALAC chose to focus on the aspects of this report that particularly impact on end users. In particular, Consumer Choice (Chapter 7), Consumer Trust (chapter 8) and Consumer Safeguards (Chapter 9), plus recommendations from the Chapter on Evaluation that are about two issues that ALAC has addressed before: The few applications from the 'Global South' and what can be done about it, and two issues that the ALAC have also identified previously of concern to end users - the definition of 'community' based applications - both the definition and how it was applied; and inconsistent rulings on strings which can lead to consumer confusion.
Chapter 6 deals with the extent to which new gTLDs have enhanced competition. The ALAC suggests this is not an issue of critical concern for consumers and do not comment on these recommendations.
My recommendation is that The ALAC supports the following recommendations (I will not spell them out as many of them are lengthy)
Recommendations 8 - 10 concerning Chapter 7 -Consumer Choice:
Support, but with the proviso that Recommendation 10 (about privacy protections) be deferred until the EPDP and Access Model are finalized.
Recommendations 11 - 13 concerning Chapter 8 - Consumer Trust.
Support. This is particularly relevant because one of the issues identified is the expectation by users that there will be a relationship between the name and the website content.
Recommendations 14 - 25 concerning Chapter 9 safeguards.
Support. (NB: Recommendations 26-28 in this chapter are about IP and trademark issues - not as relevant to end users).
Recommendations 29-31 and 34-35 in Chapter on Evaluation.
Support. Recommendations 29-31 are about assistance for the 'Global South' in applying for new gTLDs. Recommendation 34 is on community based applications - definition and handling, and Recommendation 35 deals with the problem of inconsistent rulings on strings - leading to consumer confusions.
6 Comments
Holly Raiche
NB: This is a long report. My suggestion: at least read the Executive Summary and the Recommendations (25 pages)
I propose that ALAC focus on the aspects of this report that particularly impact on end users. - particularly Consumer Choice (Chapter 7), Consumer Trust (chapter 8) and Consumer Safeguards (Chapter 9), plus recommendations from the Chapter on Evaluation that are about two issues that ALAC has addressed before: the few applications from the 'Global South' and what can be done about it, and two issues that we have also identified previously of concern to end users: the definition of c'community' based applications - both the definition and how it was applied; and inconsistent rulings on strings which can lead to consumeer confusion.
Chapter 6 deals with the extent to which new gTLDs have enhanced comptition. I suggest this is not an issue of critical concern for consumers and we do not comment on these recommendations.
My recommendation is that ALAC support the following recommendations (I will not spell them out as many of them are lengthy)
Recommendations 8 - 10 concerning Chapter 7 -Consumer Choice. Support, but with the proviso that Recommendation 10 (about privacy protections) be deferred until the EPDP and Access Model are finalised.
Recommendations 11 - 13 concerning Chapter 8 - Consumer Trust. Support. This is particularly relevant because one of the issues identified is the expectation by users that there will be a relationship between the name and the website content.
Recommendations 14 - 25 concerning Chapter 9 safeguards. Support. (NB: Recommendations 26-28 in this chapter are about IP and trademark issues - not as relevant to end users)
Recommendations 29-31 and 34-35 in Chapter on Evaluation. Support. Recommendations 29-31 are about assistance for the 'Global South' in applying for new gTLDs. Recommendation 34 is on community based applications - defintion and handling, and Recommendaion 35 deals with the problem of inconsistent rulings on strings - leading to consumer confusions.
Justine Chew
I'm still skimming through the report. In the mean time, wouldn't it be advisable to also express a position on the following?
Olivier Crepin-Leblond
Good Statement. A couple of comments:
As specified in our comments to the interim report, the ALAC is supportive of all of the recommendations in this report, including the new ones relating to the unfortunate findings regarding DNS abuse in the New gTLDs.
→ they are not "unfortunate", they are very disappointing. I would recommend the use of "disappointing" instead of unfortunate as there is no luck or fortune involved in DNS abuse findings.
In paragraph Rec. 11-13:
The ICANN community must instill trust between the relationship between the name and the website content to ensure internet users are accessing the content they seek.
There are two "between". This needs to be fixed. And is it the job of the ICANN community to instil trust, or the job of ICANN org, once the community has defined the policy?
In paragraph Rec 14-25:
Support. A healthy DNS system relies on competition and diversity of companies, big and small, applying for domains. The ALAC believes these recommendations are necessary to accomplish that goal.
I do not understand this statement. A diversity of top level domain strings proposed? Who is the "companies"? Registrants? Registrars? Registries? Should that be "applying for domains" or "applying for top level domains"?
And also in Rec 26-28:
Recommendations 26-28 in this chapter are about IP and trademark issues - not as relevant to end users)
A brand owner would argue the opposite and say that trademark issues are directly related to consumer safeguards, as the selling of fake goods under a mis-appropriated trademark is deeply prejudicial to an end consumer.
Justine Chew
I agree with most of Olivier's comments.
With respect to Rec 26-28, they pertain to (R26) impact of the New gTLD program on cost of protecting trademarks, (27) RPMs - UDRP and URS and (28) TMCH which on the face of it are not as relevant to end users as the other recommendations. However the fact that those aspects appear in the CCTRT report and that IMO they all touch on the aspect consumer trust and safeguards (even if indirectly), it wouldn't harm us to acknowledge or at least not object to them, if there is no consensus to out-rightly state our support for these 3 recommendations.
Justine Chew
"Support, but the CCT should defer Recommendation 10 (about privacy protections) until the EPDP and Access Model are finalized."
What does "until the EPDP ... are finalized" mean? Do we mean the outcomes or recommendations from the EPDP on the Temporary Specification for gTLD Registration Data?
Holly Raiche
A Justine - Point taken. Yes - agree add: until the recommendations from the EPDP and Access Model are finalised