Response to Go Daddy comment
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.