[bc-gnso] NetChoice post on 'consumer trust' and 'public interest' at ICANN

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yesterday, John Berard and I attended a workshop here in Cartagena, on a 
proposed new 'Consumer Constituency' in ICANN.   The proponents were mostly 
from ALAC, and they say their goal is bring a 'consumer agenda' to ICANN.

I just posted a blog that suggests a much better way to institutionalize BC 
values like 'consumer trust' and the 'global public interest'.

The post is shown below and is at CircleID
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20101209_institutionalizing_consumer_trust_and_public_interest_at_icann/


Institutionalizing Consumer Trust and Public Interest at 
ICANN<http://blog.netchoice.org/2010/12/institutionalizing-consumer-trust-and-public-interest-at-icann.html>

For an organization where people argue for hours over arcane minutiae, it’s 
remarkable that virtually everyone agrees that ICANN should serve the “global 
public interest” and build “consumer trust” in the Internet.

Although it’s only three pages long, ICANN’s Affirmation of 
Commitments<http://icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm>
 (AoC) cites “public interest” five times and “consumer trust” eight times. So 
at the ICANN meeting today in Cartagena, Colombia, a group of participants 
explored ways to “institutionalize” these concepts within the organization.

There’s no argument about whether to institutionalize concepts of public 
interest and consumer trust at ICANN. The real question is how to do it in the 
ICANN context.

At today’s meeting, participants focused on institutionalizing these concepts 
by creating a new ‘consumer’ constituency group within ICANN. That’s not 
surprising, since ICANN is organized as a constellation of special-interest 
stakeholder groups and  constituencies. A newly chartered ‘Consumers 
Constituency’ would get a box on the ICANN org chart and its own seat at the 
table to advocate on behalf of the public interest and consumer trust.

But before we head down that path and create yet another new institution within 
ICANN, let’s think about how to instill these values in the institution we 
already have.

After all, when ICANN committed to accountability in the AoC, there was no rush 
to create a new ‘Accountability’ Constituency. Instead, everyone assumed that 
AoC commitments apply to the entire ICANN organization and all of its 
operations. You might even say that accountability has become 
“institutionalized” within ICANN.

ICANN constituencies are special-interest by nature and oppositional by 
necessity. They defend the interests of their members against other 
constituencies that are advancing their own interests. That’s inevitable in 
making zero-sum policy decisions, but is a competing constituency model the 
best way to embrace commitments that would be agreed by all and applied to all?

Another issue with the proposed Consumer Constituency is that it would be 
placed within the ICANN organization that makes policy only for generic domains 
like com, org, and info. That means this Consumer Constituency would have no 
bearing on policies for country-code domains such as uk, cn, and br. However, 
these country-code domains are growing faster than the generics, and certainly 
ought to share the same commitment to consumer trust and the global public 
interest.

To truly institutionalize a commitment to consumer trust and the global public 
interest, it seems the last thing we need is yet another constituency group 
housed in one of ICANN’s supporting organizations.

There has to be a better way to institutionalize values across an institution. 
Give this a try:

We in the Internet community can develop definitions of “consumer trust” and 
the “public interest” in the context of ICANN. They won’t be the same 
definitions used by institutions that work in other fields, such as food safety 
or global warming. But with some focused attention, we can indeed define 
specific elements of consumer trust and public interest in the Internet context.

Next, we design metrics to assess how ICANN is affecting our definitions of 
consumer trust and serving the public interest. As Peter Dengate Thrush has 
often said, “what get’s measured, gets done,” so ICANN’s management can be 
measured and held accountable for minimum metrics and for year-over-year 
improvements.

For my part, I’ll start the conversation with a definition that fits the global 
public interest commitment in ICANN’s Bylaws and the Affirmation of 
Commitments. For an institution that coordinates the Internet domain name 
system, Public Interest means: availability and integrity of registrations and 
resolutions.

Availability of the DNS is critical for global users who increasingly rely on 
the Internet for information, communications, and commerce. Domain name 
resolutions need to be available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, from anywhere 
on the globe. Availability also means being able to use any language and any 
script for both generic and country-code domains and email addresses.

Availability also applies to domain names sought by registrants: will domains 
in new gTLDs be available to the public, or will they be captured by insiders? 
That kind of availability should also be part of the public interest test for 
ICANN decisions.

Integrity of the DNS is vital to businesses and end-users of the Internet. 
Businesses rely upon the integrity of domain name registration to ensure that 
their brands are not misrepresented or misappropriated. E-commerce and Internet 
financial transactions absolutely require integrity in resolution of domain 
names and secure delivery of encrypted data.

Internet users depend upon the integrity of domain name services to provide 
accurate and authentic results when they look up a website or send an email. 
Integrity is undermined by deceptive practices such as redirecting users to 
fraudulent websites or providing false information about the true owner of a 
domain.

I think Availability and Integrity really do capture the essence of serving the 
global public interest in the ICANN context. I’m eager to see what the ICANN 
community can do to improve on that definition, and to come up with similar 
definition for building and measuring consumer trust.

--Steve DelBianco