Re: [bc-gnso] Minutes and transcript: BC Members call on GAC Advice - Part 2 held on May 8th, 2013 at 11 am EST

[Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Too true, Martin.  I believe the only way forward is for ICANN to ensure that 
registrars and registries visibly warn Registrants that all activity on their 
domains is subject to applicable laws in all countries where citizens can see 
the website — which is all countries around the world.


From: "martinsutton@xxxxxxxx<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>" 
<martinsutton@xxxxxxxx<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>>
Date: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:28 AM
To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>, 
"owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>" 
<owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Minutes and transcript: BC Members call on GAC Advice - 
Part 2 held on May 8th, 2013 at 11 am EST

All,

This is an interesting article which illustrates the difficulties about who/how 
are strings determined to be in a particular category according to the GAC 
advice - 
http://domainincite.com/12944-this-is-how-stupid-the-gacs-new-gtlds-advice-is#comments.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the last few weeks I’ve been attempting to write a sensible analysis of the 
Governmental Advisory Committee’s advice on new gTLDs without resorting to 
incredulity, hyperbole or sarcasm.

I failed, so you’ll have to read this instead.

I’m sorry, but the GAC’s Beijing communique 
(pdf<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/27132037/Beijing%20Communique%20april2013_Final.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1365666376000&api=v2>)
 just has too much stupid in it to take seriously.

As a quick reminder, the bulk of the GAC’s advice was taken up by a list of 
hundreds of applied-for 
strings<http://domainincite.com/pro/applications-affected-by-the-gac-beijing-communique/>,
 in 12 categories, that “are likely to invoke a level of implied trust from 
consumers”.

The GAC said that any string on the list should be subject to more stringent 
regulation than others, turning their registries into data security regulators 
and creating an obligation to partner with “relevant regulatory, or industry 
self-­regulatory, bodies”.

The GAC, having advised the creation of these unexpected obligations, decided 
that it wasn’t its responsibility to figure out whether any of them would be 
feasible to implement.

That’s apparently up to ICANN to figure out.

But that’s not the most infuriating part of the advice. The most infuriating 
part is the list of strings it provided, which by the GAC’s own admission was 
unhelpfully “non-exhaustive”.

When one performs a cursory analysis of the list, and compares it to the 
strings that did not make it, the dumb just accumulates.

My spies tell me that the GAC worked into the early hours on a few occasions 
during the Beijing meeting in order to put this advice together, and some might 
say it’s unfair to expect its members to have read and formed consensus 
opinions on all 1,930 original new gTLD applications.

But the GAC wasn’t expected to read them all, nor did it. Its job was 
originally conceived of as commenting on the strings alone, and that appears to 
be what it ultimately did limit itself to.

I think it’s fair to try to get some insight into the GAC’s collective thought 
process by looking at the “Category 1″ strings that it did put on the list and 
those that it did not.

Not because I think there’s a coherent thought process at work here, but 
because I think there isn’t.

Remember, the GAC had nine months to come up with its list. This article was 
written in an afternoon.

Here’s my list of bizarre inconsistencies, failed reality checks and pure dumb 
I found in the Beijing communique.

It’s non-exhaustive.

Destroy all pirates!

The GAC is clearly a bit worried that people might use new gTLDs to offer 
pirated and counterfeited goods (like they do in existing TLDs), so it has 
placed a few dozen content-related strings on its list.

The intellectual property list is one of the longest of the 12 categories in 
the Beijing communique.

But it could be longer.

I wonder why, for example, the GAC doesn’t consider .stream a threat to 
copyright? Streaming sites are frequent targets of takedown notices.

Why does .hiphop get a mention but not .country, a gTLD specifically designed 
for country music lovers?

Why are .photography, .photo, .photos, .pictures and .pics not on the list? 
Image theft is pandemic online, enabled by default in browsers (no P2P 
required) and utterly trivial to execute.

And if .tours is considered a problem, why not .events, or .tickets?

We’re talking about sectors with abuse potential here, and ticketing is 
considered worthy of legislation in many places. Here in England you can get a 
￡5,000 fine for reselling a ticket to a football match.

Why is .tours even on the intellectual property list? It could just as easily 
refer to organized vacations or guide services provided by museums. Or the 
French city of the same name, for that matter.

Why aren’t our friends in Tours getting the same GAC love as Spa and Date — 
towns in Belgium and Japan — which have caused the delay of advice on .spa and 
.date respectively?

And why are .free, .gratis and .discount considered intellectual property 
problems?

How is the .free registry supposed to follow the GAC’s demand that it partner 
with “relevant regulatory, or industry self­-regulatory, bodies” for free 
stuff? Does “.free” even have an “implied level of trust”?

Is the GAC’s goal to kill off the bid by the back door?

Goodbye .free, you couldn’t guarantee that there wouldn’t be piracy in your TLD 
so your application is forfeit? A potentially cool TLD, sacrificed on the altar 
of Big Copyright?

Don’t even get me started on .art…

Won’t somebody think of the children?!

The GAC did not say why the “children” category exists, but I assume it’s about 
ensuring that the content in TLDs such as .kids and .school is suitable for 
“kids” (pick your own definition, the GAC doesn’t have one).

It goes without saying that any TLD that is obliged to follow child-friendly 
rules will be saddled with a commercial death sentence, as the US government 
already knows full 
well<http://domainincite.com/9746-american-government-kills-off-kids-us>.

The GAC didn’t include .family on the list for some reason, but it did 
inexplicably include .game and .games.

In the last game I played, my character stabbed a guy in the neck with a broken 
bottle, stole his clothes and threw his body off a cliff. Gaming is a 
predominantly adult 
pastime<http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2012/07/how-gamings-demographics-reverted-back-to-2005/>
 nowadays.

Suggesting that .games sites need to be child-friendly is just as stupid as 
saying .movie or .book sites need to be child-friendly.

I’m sure GAC chair Heather Dryden is far too sensible and grown-up to play 
games, but I’d be surprised if not a single member of the committee owns an 
Xbox. One of them should have pointed this nonsense out.

If the GAC is not saying this — if it’s merely saying the .games registry 
should work cooperatively with the gaming industry — then why is .games in the 
“Children” category?

The GAC Diet

Another couple dozen strings are listed under the “health and fitness” 
category, ranging from the not-unreasonable, such as .doctor, to the 
terrifically broad, such as .diet and .care.

Really? .care?

Donuts, the .care applicant, has to partner with some kind of medical register 
in order to sell a TLD that could just as easily be used for customer support 
by a company that sells shoes?

And .diet? If the GAC is concerned about internet users getting dodgy dieting 
advice from a disreputable .diet registrant, why not also issue advice against 
.eat and .food?

If .fitness is a problem, why isn’t .yoga?

Why isn’t the GAC bothered by .tattoo and .ink? Where I live, you need to be a 
licensed professional in order to stick people with an inky needle.

For that matter, why aren’t .beauty and .salon a problem? Pretty much every 
beauty salon I’ve walked past in the last couple of years wants to inject 
toxins into my face for a fee.

If we’re already saying games are for kids, that free equals fake, and that 
tours can be pirated, it doesn’t seem like too unreasonable a leap to to 
regulate .beauty too.

You feed beefburgers to swans

There’s a provision in the Beijing communique saying that every string on the 
GAC’s list must force its registrants “to comply with all applicable laws, 
including those that relate to… organic farming.”

So why the hell doesn’t .farm appear on the list?!?

Really, it doesn’t. I’ve triple-checked. It’s not there. According to the GAC’s 
advice, a .bingo registrant has to abide by organic farming laws but a .farm 
registrant does not.

Some professions are more equal than others

For all of the “Category 1″ strings the GAC has advised against, the headline 
argument is this:

Strings that are linked to regulated or professional sectors should operate in 
a way that is consistent with applicable laws.

But there are plenty of strings that are “linked to regulated or professional 
sectors” that don’t merit a mention in the communique.

Alcohol, for example. The sale of booze is regulated pretty much everywhere — 
in some places it’s illegal — but .pub and .bar don’t make it to the GAC’s 
advice. Neither does .vodka.

If the GAC wants .weather to have strict controls — with no abuse scenario I 
can think of — why not a couple of TLDs that could, potentially, be used to 
sell alcohol over the internet?

What of construction? There may have been advice against .engineer, but 
.construction, .building, .contractors and .build got a pass. Why? Governments 
everywhere regulate the building industry tightly.

Here in the UK, if you want a plumber to come over and tinker with your heating 
you’d better hope they’re on the Gas Safe Register, but .plumber doesn’t show 
up in the Beijing communique.

Why not? An abusive .dentist registrant could mess up my teeth, but he’ll need 
an expensive surgery to do it in. An abusive .plumber, on the other hand, can 
come over and blow up my house with no such outlay.

Taxis are regulated in most big cities, but .taxi and .limo escaped GAC advice. 
Hell, even porn is strictly controlled in many countries, but .porn got a pass.

I could go on.

Anyway…

You might think I’m being petty, but remember: the GAC got the list of 
applied-for strings last June the same as everybody else. It had plenty of time 
to get its advice list right.

The GAC has a big responsibility in the multi-stakeholder process and by 
presenting advice that appears half-assed at best it makes it look like it 
doesn’t take that responsibility seriously.

I know it does, but it doesn’t appear that way.

Martin C 
SUTTON<http://directory.global.hsbc/cgi-whitepages/search-entry.pl?attribute_extramail=mail&operator_extramail=sw&unused_searching=no&co=*&value_extramail=martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>
Group Risk
Manager, Group Fraud Risk and Intelligence | HSBC HOLDINGS PLC HGHQ
Group Security & Fraud Risk
8 Canada Square,Canary Wharf,London,E14 5HQ,United Kingdom
________________________________________________________________


Phone   +44 (0)20 7991 8074 / 7991 8074
Mobile  +44 (0) 7774556680
Email   martinsutton@xxxxxxxx<mailto:martinsutton@xxxxxxxx>


________________________________________________________________
Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!




From:   "Benedetta Rossi" 
<bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>>
To:     <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date:   09/05/2013 19:03
Subject:        [bc-gnso] Minutes and transcript: BC Members call on GAC Advice 
- Part 2 held on May 8th, 2013 at 11 am EST
Sent by:        owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>


________________________________



Dear BC Members,

Please find attached the minutes & transcript from yesterday’s BC Members call 
on GAC Advice – Part 2 which took place at 11 am EST.

These materials are also available on the BC Wiki: 
https://community.icann.org/x/0YHbAQ

Thank you,

--
Kind Regards,

Benedetta Rossi
BC Secretariat
bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx
https://community.icann.org/display/gnsobc/Home
www.bizconst.org

 [attachment "Minutes BC Members call MAY 08 2013.pdf" deleted by Martin C 
SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC] [attachment "BC MAY 08 2013.pdf" deleted by Martin C 
SUTTON/HGHQ/HSBC]



************************************************************
HSBC Holdings plc
Registered Office: 8 Canada Square, London E14 5HQ, United Kingdom
Registered in England number 617987
************************************************************
----------------------------------------- SAVE PAPER - THINK BEFORE YOU PRINT! 
This E-mail is confidential. It may also be legally privileged. If you are not 
the addressee you may not copy, forward, disclose or use any part of it. If you 
have received this message in error, please delete it and all copies from your 
system and notify the sender immediately by return E-mail. Internet 
communications cannot be guaranteed to be timely secure, error or virus-free. 
The sender does not accept liability for any errors or omissions.