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 <stephvg@xxxxxxxxx>]

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.
>> 
>