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

["Jonathan Robinson" <jonathan.robinson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve (Del Bee Ank O as the scribes call him) was a very effective
presenter.
The work comes across as thorough and professional so a credit to the
process.

Not all is going quite so smoothly!


Jonathan

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair
Sent: 24 June 2012 13:13
To: Steve DelBianco
Cc: gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Berry Cobb
Subject: Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] Consumer Metrics: notes from presentation
to GAC, 23-Jun-2012


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_Scoreca
rd+GAC+outstanding+issues+20110223.pdf?version=2&modificationDate=1312465657
000>) 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 
> UDRP+legacy gTLDs.  E.g. 1000 UDRP+URS decisions against registrants 
> UDRP+in 1 million registrations give a relative rate of 0.1 percent or 
> UDRP+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@berrycobb.c
> om>>
> Date: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:04 AM
> To: 
> "gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx><m
> ailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx>" 
> <gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx><m
> ailto: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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> m>
> @berrycobb
> <GNSO CCTC Presentation Prague 2012.ppt> <Notes from Metrics 
> presentation to GNSO Council.docx>
> 
> <GAC CCTC Presentation Prague 2012.ppt>