FW: [bc-gnso] latest draft of "advice" on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, and Competition

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve, John
Thanks for forwarding this to the BC. It shows an tremendous amount of work. 
GAC on this topic? 
Just an idea: for future preparation of the chart, could you ask Staff to 
number the items, so for instance: 1. % DNS Service Availability.  Then 
comments could be related to the numbered item. In the meantime, I have done 
the best I can, but am not inserting my comments into the 'charts' at this 
point. 
In addition, I have a few questions that may have already been discussed, and 
for some reason are not incorporated in the measurement elements.  These could 
be part of a separate conference call discussion for the BC, perhaps on this 
particular topic, since many members are likely to have interest in this work.  
 I am not proposing that this consume the upcoming BC members call, though, 
since it probably deserves its own time slot for those specifically interested. 
I do support that the BC would like to have some metric about 'defensive 
registrations', versus resolving/purposed registrations. For example, a new 
gTLD may garner -- as did .biz and .info in their first years -- close to 70%++ 
of registrations [or more], that were duplicate, defensive registrations.  URDP 
and URS won't identify this category, as the trademark 'holder' would have 
registered to prevent cyber squatting, or confusingly similar registrations.  
The document, page 8, item 2 in the chart, suggests that Zone and WHOIS data is 
the source. More discussion may be useful on this topic. 
The first WHOIS TF, which I chaired, did a user survey, and respondents 
voluntarily participated.  ICANN could encourage new gTLDs via the registry 
agreement to agree to post standard notices of the opportunity to participate 
in surveys and studies that will be undertaken, from time to time, under 
ICANN's sponsorship, and provide a neutral link to the information on the ICANN 
website which could have a page devoted to Studies and Surveys. 
Second, in reference to 'difficulty' in consensus on survey questions -- over 
the years, the gNSO Council has struggled with, or even contested the 
development of validated surveys, due to the internal conflicts, and the 
challenges in the process of policy development. The WHOIS surveys are an 
example of years of debate, slowly moving toward accepting the studies. 
Item 5: % Uptime for Registrar Services, such as WHOIS, contact info [meaning 
for the Registrar?] and [acknowledgement/resolution of] complaints. This item 
says that it is 'doubtful that Registrars will compile... etc.  Wouldn't this 
item also be subject to random checks and publication of data by ICANN? 
The 3 year target in many of the elements is "Lower than incidence in legacy 
gTLDs".  Is there present data on what that is? And, I am assuming that the 
incidence is different from legacy gTLD to legacy gTLD. Is the WG proposing an 
average? Or is this part of the still to be discussed topics?
APWG and SpamHaus [and ICANN] have suggested areas to be measured that I think 
have some relevance as well for other ongoing work, such as DSSA, SSR, WHOIS 
and the SSAC's work and reports.  Would it be possible to add a footnote when 
that is the case, so that the linkage is apparent? and the interactions 
supported? 
Page 9, item 3 says that the Quantity of Ry Service Providers is 'moderately 
difficult to obtain'. I am not sure I agree. ICANN has to have an agrement with 
any Ry provider. 
under the discussion of the definition of Competition: 'market rivalry' doesn't 
seem like a definition that can be measured. Does this mean that the WG thinks 
that this is about whether the RYs actively market 'against' each other? I 
would have thought that the issue was really different choices for registrants. 
 A highly successful NOT for profit gTLD could NOT market against another group 
of gTLDs, but focus on just recruiting and marketing to their 'specialized' 
targeted group of registrants. 
Item 5 and 6, page 9: again suggests that the % of new and all registrations is 
difficult to obtain. Is this saying that a defensive/duplicate registration is 
not a 'new' registration? 
Item 7: Whole sale price: why is this going to be hard? Is this because the 
registries consider this confidential marketing information? However in Item 8, 
it seems easier to report 'retail' prices. I am not sure that I support the 3 
year target. The prices should be gathered and made public in a report, but 
having second level names lower than $3.00 USD is not a measurement of value, 
or diversity. For example, a second level registration in a financially 
oriented gTLD is likely to cost more, due to due diligence, extra 'services', 
etc. LOW cost isn't a sufficient nor, in my view, a valid target. 
Sunrise prices should be made avaliable and ICANN can publish them. I can't 
understand how a Registry is going to announce and operate a Sunrise without 
publishing the information. 
From: sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
CC: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bc-gnso] latest draft of "advice" on Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, 
and Competition
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 17:18:42 +0000













As I've mentioned on recent BC member calls, John Berard and I are on a Working 
Group looking at definitions and metrics for Consumer Trust, Choice, and 
Competition in the gTLD expansion.  

















I've just circulated the 4th draft of "Advice" to the board on the definitions 
and measures. (attached)











I changed the measures tables to include explanations of anticipated 
difficulties in obtaining and/or reporting each measure.  The intention is to 
help the community understand the reasoning behind our assessments of 
difficulty.  Hopefully this will stimulate
 community members to offer suggestions during public comment period.










Our WG still needs to carefully review proposed measures in Choice and 
Competition sections.   If possible, indicate your comments and edits about 
Measures and 3-year targets within the respective table row.After the WG 
finishes its edits, this draft advice
 will be posted for public comment.  We will conduct a public work session in 
Costa Rica as well.







Then a final version will go to GNSO, ccNSO, ALAC, and GAC for them to amend / 
send to the Board. 








Our next WG call is Tuesday 7-Feb.


















--









Steve DelBianco
Executive Director
NetChoice
http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
+1.202.420.7482