ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


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

Response to Go Daddy comment

  • To: cyber-safety-petition@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Response to Go Daddy comment
  • From: Debra Peck <debbypeck@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 12:01:33 -0600

We appreciate the thoughtful comments submitted on behalf of Go Daddy.

1.  We understand the concern about including law enforcement
non-profit organizations when commercial security providers are not
permitted under the rules of the non-commercial stakeholders group.
We suggest the formation of a security focused constituency in the
commercial users house as well that can work in coordination with the
CSC.  The criteria for eligibility in the CSC and in the
non-commercial house are articulated in some detail in Section 5.0 of
the CSC Charter.

2. We appreciate your concern over ICANN moving into content
regulation.  In fact, the CSC mission statement expressly states: “The
CSC will . . . advocate[] that ICANN policies and the technical
development of the Internet should not unduly impair the lawful rights
of governments and other organizations of authority to take steps to
protect their citizens and members from illegal activity conducted on
or through the Internet.”  We are committed to helping ICANN avoid
making policies that usurp jurisdiction over content.

Moreover, we will only be involved in discussing issues that are
before the GNSO.  In the last few months, for instance, the GNSO
agenda has included many matters that have safety and protection
implications: for instance, the use of domain names to promulgate
scams, phishing, pharming, spam; the development of registrants'
rights; the gathering and preserving of identity information on WHOIS
or other databases, and public order and morality issues with the
granting of new Top Level Domain names.

3. The fear of “commercially nonviable” approaches is completely
unfounded in the GNSO context.  The CSC would be one constituency
among many.  The entire non-commercial stakeholder group is only one
of four houses.  The other three are commercial.  Policies are built
by consensus and voting.  No one is going to convince the other
Council members to consider “commercially nonviable” proposals, even
if they could be raised in this venue.  We have no intent to imply
your broad reading of the word “access.”

4.  We have absolutely no intent to suggest that there have not been
many, many effective efforts to increase the safety of Internet users
over the years.  We heartily apologize if our efforts have been read
by anyone to suggest this.  We could list many very impressive safety
and security projects, wrought both inside and outside of ICANN.  We
appreciate the work of Go Daddy especially.

Our modest proposal is to simply create a formally recognized
constituency with this focus in the non-commercial users house of the
GNSO.  The fact that others are also concerned about security in other
constituencies and other ICANN structures does not preclude that.  In
fact, the GNSO restructuring effort, now in its second year, expressly
seeks the creation of new non-commercial constituencies to increase
the breadth of the involvement in the GNSO.

We hope that the CSC constituency can work together with the others,
such as Go Daddy, to continue the effort to make the Internet as safe
as possible.

Debra Peck, J.D.

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

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy