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

[Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>