ICANN ICANN Email List Archives

[bc-gnso]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: "bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx GNSO list" <bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx>, "owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx" <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
  • From: Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 15:20:31 +0200

Hi all,

My messages aren't getting to the list at the moment. Hopefully that is now 
fixed.

Resending my earlier message (see below) just to test.

Stéphane

Le 10 mai 2013 à 11:20, Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx> a 
écrit :

> Thanks Martin.
> 
> 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 made the point the other day about the fact that GAC advice is not 
> consistent with the ICANN model if it is an attempt to redefine, at the last 
> minute, policy that was established through community BU development a long 
> time ago.
> 
> Stéphane Van Gelder
> Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
> STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING
> 
> T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053
> T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89
> Skype: SVANGELDER
> www.StephaneVanGelder.com
> ----------------
> Follow us on Twitter: @stephvg and "like" us on Facebook: 
> www.facebook.com/DomainConsultant
> LinkedIn: fr.linkedin.com/in/domainconsultant/
> 
> Le 10 mai 2013 à 09:28, martinsutton@xxxxxxxx a écrit :
> 
>> 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) 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, 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.
>> 
>> 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 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 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________________________________ 
>> Protect our environment - please only print this if you have to!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From:        "Benedetta Rossi" <bc-secretariat@xxxxxxxxx>
>> To:  <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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
> 



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy