Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Consumer Metrics: notes from presentation to GAC, 23-Jun-2012

[Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi all

Incredibly valuable feedback and comments! 

Seems to me a range of important stakeholders understand the work

And have sunstantive comments for us to consider!

A great response to our work, 

Cheers

Rosemary

Rosemary Sinclair
Director, External Relations
Australian School of Business
UNSW
+61 413 734490

On 24/06/2012, at 6:34 PM, "Steve DelBianco" <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> For those who missed the GAC – GNSO meeting yesterday, the Audiocast is 
> here<http://audio.icann.org/meetings/prague2012/gac-gnso-23jun12-en.mp3>.   
> Transcript should be available soon.  The slides we presented are attached.
> 
> It seems that GAC members appreciate our work thus far.   While answering 
> their questions I took some limited notes and would appreciate hearing from 
> others who attended.
> 
> Mark Carvel (UK): this is incredibly valuable work.  Important Affirmation 
> review.  Govts will consult with their Consumer Protection Authorities during 
> Application Evaluation.  Asked about Consumer Trust metrics regarding 
> Registrars.  Regarding application question 18 (Purpose), Mark asked whether 
> it should be in the contract.
> 
> Manal Ismail (Egypt): encouraged stressing End User perspective in our 
> metrics.   Such as IDNs and user confusion.
> 
> Portugal: encouraged us to stress "end user perceptions" which will reflect 
> cultural differences.
> 
> EC:  Acknowledged our work.  Encouraged us to avoid making the metrics more 
> complex than necessary.   Regarding question 18, said that EC would be 
> "disappointed" if applicant commits to a purpose and then does something 
> else.   Asked whether we anticipated that ICANN staff would be doing the data 
> gathering and managing survey and data vendors.
> 
> During slide 7, I described our interaction with USG and stated that our WG 
> would not attempt to measure all costs and benefits.   But GAC remains 
> interested in this metric.  So I did some research into prior GAC advice on 
> new gTLDs.   GAC 2007 new gTLD Principles 
> (link<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/gTLD_principles_0.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1312358178000>)
>  did not mention costs vs benefits.  But GAC's 2011 Scorecard 
> (link<https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/1540128/20110223_Scorecard+GAC+outstanding+issues+20110223.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1312465657000>)
>  suggests that benefits should exceed costs, and even requested the analysis 
> for EACH gTLD applicant :
> 
> Market and Economic Impacts
> 
> The GAC advises the ICANN Board to instruct ICANN staff to amend the final 
> Draft Applicant Guidebook to incorporate the following:
> 
>  1.  Criteria to facilitate the weighing of the potential costs and benefits 
> to the public in the evaluation and award of new gTLDs.
> 
>  2.  A requirement that new gTLD applicants provide information on the 
> expected benefits of the proposed gTLD, as well as information and proposed 
> operating terms to eliminate or minimize costs to registrants and consumers.
> 
>  3.  Due diligence or other operating restrictions to ensure that 
> Community-based gTLDs will in fact serve their targeted communities and will 
> not broaden their operations in a manner that makes it more likely for the 
> registries to impose costs on existing domain owners in other TLDs.
> 
> Explanation:
> The economic studies conducted by Katz, Rosston and Sullivan contain 
> important findings that the past introduction of new gTLDs provided minimal 
> public benefits in terms of competition for existing gTLDs and relieving name 
> scarcity. The studies further state clearly that the introduction of new 
> gTLDs had imposed costs on intellectual property owners in diluted brand 
> strength, defensive registrations, and other costs associated with protecting 
> their brands.
> 
> ICANN's Board did not accept this advice.  But I wanted us all to know where 
> this "benefits and costs" metric was coming from.
> 
> From: Rosemary Sinclair 
> <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Saturday, June 23, 2012 11:01 PM
> To: Steve DelBianco 
> <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Cc: "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>, Berry 
> Cobb <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Consumer Metrics: notes from presentation 
> to GNSO Council, 23-Jun-2012
> 
> Hi all
> 
> Issue re Costs and Benefits
> 
> USG focused on Economic costs and benefits...looking for overall net increase 
> in social welfare for whole community. Key factor here is timeframe used and 
> inclusion of "externalities" when assessing costs and benefits
> 
> GNSO councillors (some of) focused on ACCOUNTING type costs and 
> benefits...price of gTLD, price of registration, cost to defend trademark 
> etc. This is a different analysis and much shorter term, not using discount 
> rates etc
> 
> Just for sake of completeness there are other perspectives thru which to do 
> Cost Benefit Analysis eg
> 
> Tax perspective on costs
> Regulator perspective for rate setiing
> Annual Report perspective ...think Enron, think Glkbal Crossing...think 
> ratings agencies ....
> 
> I have re-read Econ Fwk doc in last couple of days
> 
> We should stay away from this playing field .....look fwd to more chatter on 
> this one!
> 
> Enjoy Prague!
> 
> Rosemary
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Rosemary
> 
> Rosemary Sinclair
> Director, External Relations
> Australian School of Business
> UNSW
> +61 413 734490
> 
> On 23/06/2012, at 7:38 PM, "Steve DelBianco" 
> <sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
> 
> In Saturday's GNSO Council work session, we spent an hour presenting and 
> discussing our draft advice.
> The presentation is attached.
> Also attached (and below) are notes for how I described the "Key Issues".  
> Below that are the questions/comments from Councilors and general audience.
> 40+ Metrics for Consumer Trust, Consumer Choice, & Competition
> combination of surveys and stats
> someattempt to measure costs;
> not all have targets
> None are intended to steer indiv Ry operators or drive policy development
> User and registrant Surveys for Consumer Trust & Consumer Choice
> Combined annual surveys of users and registrants
> Assess awareness of new gTLDs in general; and of specific-purpose gTLDs
> perceptions about trust,
> experience in finding desired content;
> experience with phishing & malware;
> registrant experience pursuing cybersquatting
> Consumer Trust - Relative Incidence of UDRP, URS, & Litigation
> UDRP+URS complaints and decisions against registrants “relative” to legacy 
> gTLDs.  E.g. 1000 UDRP+URS decisions against registrants in 1 million 
> registrations give a relative rate of 0.1 percent or 1 per 1000
> Ry Contract breach notices: [significantly] lower than in legacy gTLDs.  1/20 
> =  5% of registries.   5% of new Registries could be as high as 100 breach 
> notices!
> Consumer Choice - Defensive & Duplicate Registrations, Redirects
> 3 potential indicators of registrations done for “defensive” purposes:
> sunrise registrations or blocks using TM clearinghouse
> redirects (automated
> self-reported duplicate registrations
> Collect data from IP organizations on quantities and costs of def 
> registrations and of pursuing cybersquatting.
> Competition - Wholesale and Retail pricing of Domain Registrations
> Our proposed Competition metrics include comparing wholesale and retail 
> prices in new gTLDs open to public vs legacy gTLDs open to general public.  
> No target, just comparison.
> USG is keenly interested in weekly data on revenue and registration 
> volume,both legacy and new gTLDs.
> Appendix B:  ICANN legal advised us they are concerned about collecting, 
> comparing, and sharing non-pubic price data.   Also concerned about potential 
> that price focus could lead to price recommendations.
> To address this: WG could recommend that a third party could collect and 
> analyze the data, sharing only aggregates and stats.
> gTLD expansion program Costs and Benefits
> USG comments: “benefits of new gTLDs must outweigh costs to consumers and 
> other market participants”
> WG asked the USG reps to reconcile that with what’s in the Affirmation.
> WG won’t attempt to measure all benefits and costs.  Some significant costs 
> are evaluated, though.
> Q&A/Discussion on Council:
> JeffNeuman: troubled by timing of 3-yr targets; some targets are unreasonable 
> too.
> Ching Chiao: will these metrics drive registry contract requirements?  (No)
> Wendy Seltzer: flag concerns with framing of Consumer Trust; looking 
> backwards atpast abuses; need to see unexpected benefits of new innovation
> MaryWong: recommended the WG add advice to modify the metrics as new benefits 
> (and new abuses) become evident.  (good idea)
> AlanGreenberg: concern with Redirect metric.  Some redirects are beneficial 
> and not defensive
> Zahid Jamil: compliments on progress; ICANN has an obligation here; likes 
> Flexibility (Mary’s idea); how do registrants know which national laws apply 
> to them and to the Registrar and Registry they’re considering?  (described 
> our choice metric on visibility and clarity)
> Jonathan Robinson: Helpful and interesting perspective on new gTLD program.  
> Troubled with 3-year target, given ramp-up time and gradual delegations
> Michael Graham (IPC): Q18 proposed mission and purpose could support consumer 
> trust
> NPOCChair: gave anecdote of World Bank project to define 160 metrics for 
> poverty reduction projects.   When the WB asked citizens in developing 
> nations they got 500 metrics for poverty.  Are we asking regular consumers 
> about our metrics?  (contrasted WB process with ICANN’s pub comment process)
> JeffNeuman: Closed (single registrant) TLDs may not fit with open gTLDs when 
> doing many metrics.  (cited the Competition measures where we excluded closed 
> TLDs; said that trust and choice for internet users would apply to closed 
> TLDs)
> James Bladel: redirects: should get baseline data from legacy gTLDs today 
> (good idea)
> Jeremy Beal: interesting to look at “potential” consumers.  (cited choice 
> metrics on IDNs, languages, geographic diversity )
> Olivier CLB (ALAC): metrics should be seen as trends too.  Look at progress 
> over time.
> Chuck Gomes: this is a good example of M-S model working well.  Compliments.
> JeffNeuman: excellent work.
> --
> Steve DelBianco
> Executive Director
> NetChoice
> http://www.NetChoice.org and http://blog.netchoice.org
> +1.202.420.7482
> From: Berry Cobb 
> <mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:04 AM
> To: 
> "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>"
>  
> <gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx><mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>>
> Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Latest Docs
> Team,
> Here are the latest PPT & Advice Letter.  I did not include the Public 
> Comment Review tool, as it barely changed today.
> Thank you.  B
> Berry Cobb
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
> 720.839.5735
> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx><mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> @berrycobb
> <GNSO CCTC Presentation Prague 2012.ppt>
> <Notes from Metrics presentation to GNSO Council.docx>
> 
> <GAC CCTC Presentation Prague 2012.ppt>