Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] v1.9 of Advice Letter

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12 August 2012 14:44, Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In particular, NCSG disagrees with attribution at the gTLD level of the
> second group of "trust" metrics, the "Measures related to confidence
> that TLD operators are fulfilling promises and complying with ICANN
> policies and applicable national laws:" namely, 1.9, 1.10, 1.11, 1.13,
> 1.14, 1.15, 1.16, 1.17,1.18, 1.19, 1.20.  It is further inappropriate to
> use unverified complaints as a basis for metrics (1.9, 1.11, 1.20).
>


For what it's worth ....

As many in this group know, I've been one of its more-cynical participants,
and from the start was very concerned about the apparent lack of concern
for non-registrant end-users. In the time since, I've come to appreciate
the work that the group (and especially Olivier and Cheryl) have done to
address my concerns, notably changes in the preamble and especially for
user-focused metrics additions such as 2.13.

In the same light I wish to asset that, from a public-interest (and more to
the point "public trust in the DNS") point of view, measures such as 1.10
1.13, 1.16, 1.17, 1.18, 1.19 are vital in helping to build public
confidence that growth in the name system is not accompanied by growth in
opportunities to attack and defraud Internet end users.

(Having said that, I agree completely with Wendy that metrics  regarding
unverified or unsubstantiated complaints should be assigned significantly
less value than those that are proven, or preferably should be dropped
entirely. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. A growth in complaints could
simply indicate a growth in harassment of legitimate sites -- the
"complaint" metrics would be useful if seen in this light, as a metric of
harassment of registrants.)



> Separately, NCSG disagrees with setting targets for the "redirection,"
> "duplicates," (2.10, 2.11) and "traffic" (2.15) measures. All of these
> presume that the use for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service
> to different parties, while some might be used to provide different
> services to parties including existing registrants.
>


I would humbly disagree with Wendy on 2.10 and 2.11. While they may not
suit every kind of analysis, they most certainly address a widespread (of
which I'm aware at a grassroots level) complaint that the gTLD expansion is
a "shakedown" attempt to coerce existing domain owners to buy new domains
they don't need (but must "stake out"). These metrics could be used to
indicate trends in the perception of need for defensive domain purchases.

As for 2.15, I think I agree with Wendy. I don't see traffic volume on its
own as a measure of much to do with trust or confidence.

- Evan