[gnso-consumercci-dt] Follow-up on USG comments for ICANN's Consumer Trust metrics
Last week I met with a US Justice Department attorney to discuss the USG comments on our initial draft advice. I discussed some of our concerns over measuring costs vs benefits. I asked some questions about the USG comments on Competition metrics. And I showed them our draft response to additional consumer metrics the USG recommended. (attached) Yesterday, a Justice Department attorney responded with the thoughtful reply below. Let's add this to our next discussion of public comments. -- Steve DelBianco Executive Director NetChoice http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org +1.202.420.7482 From: <Tierney>, James <James.Tierney@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:James.Tierney@xxxxxxxxx>> Date: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 5:02 PM To: Steve DelBianco <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>, Fiona Alexander <falexander@xxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:falexander@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> Cc: "Watson, Shaundra" <SWATSON@xxxxxxx<mailto:SWATSON@xxxxxxx>>, "Heimert, Andrew J." <AHEIMERT@xxxxxxx<mailto:AHEIMERT@xxxxxxx>>, "Kraus, Elizabeth" <EKRAUS@xxxxxxx<mailto:EKRAUS@xxxxxxx>>, "Scheele, Scott" <Scott.Scheele@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Scott.Scheele@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Brown, Kent" <Kent.Brown@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Kent.Brown@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Wilder, Jeffrey" <Jeffrey.Wilder@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Jeffrey.Wilder@xxxxxxxxx>>, "Raubitschek, Ruth" <Ruth.Raubitschek@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:Ruth.Raubitschek@xxxxxxxxx>> Subject: RE: follow-up on USG comments for ICANN's Consumer Trust metrics Steve, it was a pleasure meeting with you and we appreciate the willingness of the working group to address the issues raised by the DOJ and FTC. We have coordinated with the FTC and below is our joint response to the questions and issues your raised. Please don’t hesitate to contact us if you have any other questions. The introduction of new TLDs may benefit consumers through increased output (e.g., increase in the number of registrations), lower prices and increased innovation. To assess the potential benefits of the introduction of new TLDs, ICANN should seek to measure each of these criteria. Increased "output" is an important metric because it helps determine whether the expansion of TLDs has allowed more consumers to enter the market or existing consumers to benefit from increased options in the market. Increased output may be measured by the number of new domain registrations that would not have taken place had new TLDs not been created. Output in the form of domain registrations in new TLDs must be adjusted to account for expected registrations in existing TLDs (including any projected growth) and defensive registrations.Many different facts may be pertinent to an evaluation of whether new TLDs have spurred innovation, but data showing the number of registrants that have switched registrations from existing TLDs to new TLDs could provide one measure of perceived differences in quality between existing TLDs and new TLDs. We do not propose specific targets; however, consumers may benefit from any measurable decrease in price or any measurable increase in output or the offering of new technologies or improved services. We also agree with your suggestion that an assessment of user traffic may provide some evidence regarding the quality the new TLDs. The price/quality time series and expanded surveys that we have recommended will provide evidence to measure consumer benefits. When collecting data, ICANN should ask the surveyed registries and registrars to state, separately for each week and each TLD, the number of domain names registered, the number of defensive/duplicate registrations, total revenues for registry or registrar services, and the average price per registration at both the registry and registrar level. Data should be collected for at least one year before the introduction of any new TLDs. The surveys that we have recommended for individual registrants could be expanded to seek traffic data. Finally, we offer the following comments regardingthe consumer trust metrics: -In regard to the relative incidence of complaints, we believe the metric is appropriate as a catchall to address any issues that might be relevant that do not fall in the limited specific categories identified in the current metrics (e.g., complaint against a registrar for misconduct, complaints regarding abuse within the TLD). -In regard to malware sites, the scope of the proposed metrics does not cover all potential incidences of malware. For example, it appears that the metrics would not include malware downloads that occur on sites other than those that were set up as imposter sites (e.g., consumer visits site to download music files and also gets malware vs. a site posing as the consumer's financial institution). -In regard to spam, it seems as though limiting the metric of spam solely to honeypot e-mails might be too narrow. Our proposed formulation would broaden it to encompass any other possible measures of spam, e.g., number of consumer complaints received (Several countries are developing spam reporting centers, e.g., Canada.) -In regard to breach notices, the proposed metric does not adequately capture the incidence of sanctions imposed as a result of breach notices, as registrars have an opportunity to cure breaches before suspensions or terminations are sought. Our metric would capture these additional scenarios. -In regard to data breaches, this metric does not need to be linked to national laws, as they vary widely and are at developing stages in some countries. We do not need to analyze whether there was a legal violation in a specific jurisdiction to know whether there was a security breach and a loss of data or some other harm. In addition, as noted, it may not always be a compliance issue. Finally, if linked with the national law provision, then others might want to see an enumerated list of all of the high priority concerns, not just data breach. Attachment:
Item 25 for Metrics WG.docx |