RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards

[Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let's not be afraid of calling for self governance and collaborative multi 
stakeholder governance.
That is what ICANN is supposed to be about. 
Self governance in a space that is identified with an industry sector that is 
regulated [I think] has to include the government, and consumer protection 
authorities, and someone who represents registrants, and not just be about a 
registry wanting to control an industry space. An entity that wants to have a 
seal of approval for an industry string should want to have a self governance 
council of some sort to ensure their own integrity and ability to adhere to 
what they say they are doing.  And to support their distinctiveness. 
Kids /Children is also an area where there is legitimate concern about a 'clean 
and safe' space. I am sure that those legitimate companies who market 
children's goods don't want to have child luring going on in an adjacent domain 
name that looks confusingly similar to theirs.:-) 
The BC can call for innovation by the applicants and offer some ideas about 
self governance, but our comments  can't just be suggesting that it is okay to 
be industry insiders in such an advisory group. It needs to include consumer 
activists, and government, and be inclusive and representative.  Yes, that is a 
potential cost, but frankly, any applicant that wanted to operate an industry 
string should have already done this. The fact they haven't is distressing, 
Perhaps some have, and we just haven't learned of it. 
Example of iffor:  I don't see the need to over identify with .xxx but 
actually, also PIR has an advisory council [or something similar.   Let's go 
for a couple of examples. But iffor did a good job. Why not accept that? 
So, two strong points: First, the GAC did its own homework, and we should not 
criticize the strings that they identified. Originally I didn't get it, so I 
did a bit on online research.  Turns out that Health and Fitnesses gyms are 
regulated in most countries -- apparently killing people by over exercising 
them on machines is a bad thing. :-) And food supplements are as well. :-) Long 
list of countries. Including Chile, Argentina, Mexico, S.Africa, Canada, New 
Zealand, US... etc. 
How about proposing a self governing entity/council/group that includes 
industry professional associations; NGOs; independent experts; and consumer 
activists, plus governmental participants, as observer, suitable to the 
industry, and calling on the applicant to create and support the advisory 
group? 
PIR and iFFOR are both examples. 
Some country codes also do something similar. 
M


To: mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 
svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards
Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 12:28:59 -0700

I must agree!
Berard

--------- Original Message ---------Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC 
Advice on new gTLD Safeguards
From: icann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: 5/13/13 11:58 am
To: "'Elisa Cooper'" <Elisa.Cooper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 
"'Stéphane_Van_Gelder_Consulting'" <svg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Steve 
DelBianco'" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx

Agreed. Mike RodenbaughRODENBAUGH LAWTel/Fax: 
+1.415.738.8087http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Elisa Cooper
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:15 AM
To: Stéphane Van Gelder Consulting; Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards +1 
Best,Elisa Elisa CooperDirector of Product MarketingMarkMonitor Elisa 
CooperChair ICANN Business Constituency 208 389-5779 PH From: 
owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stéphane 
Van Gelder Consulting
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 6:48 AM
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: bc-gnso@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] responding to GAC Advice on new gTLD Safeguards Thanks 
Steve. I may not be getting the point you are making, but I would feel it 
inappropriate for the BC as a group to recommend use of an organisation that is 
so closely linked with one specific TLD (Dot XXX). I would prefer a more 
general comment along the lines of "in general, the BC is in favor of industry 
self-regulation and recommends that for the specific industries outlined in the 
GAC's advice on safeguards, an appropriate entity be selected to provide 
guidance to help each industry sector self regulate." Just very rough wording, 
but you get the general idea of my comments I'm sure ;) Thanks,
Stéphane Van Gelder
Chairman and Managing Director/Fondateur
STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

T (UK): +44 (0)7583 457053T (FR): +33 (0)6 20 40 55 89Skype: 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 13 mai 2013 à 14:22, Steve 
DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> a écrit :


For many of the safeguards requested by the GAC, the BC might recommend 
industry self-regulation via IFFOR (The International Foundation for Online 
Responsibility).  (link) See Kieren McCarthy's article on CircleID (link)   
note: Kieren serves on IFFOR's Policy Council. Since we are currently drafting 
BC comments on GAC advice, it would be helpful to hear BC member feedback on 
whether we should recommend IFFOR   This may have been what Marilyn and Ron 
were getting at during the last two conference calls. -- Steve 
DelBiancoExecutive DirectorNetChoicehttp://www.NetChoice.org and 
http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482