Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] RE: updated advice on consumer metrics, per 20-November WG conference

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Michael,


On 25 November 2012 11:27, Michael R. Graham <mgraham@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Evan:
>
> Were you able to set your specific thoughts and objections down in your
> private email so they can be considered?
>

Most pressing, I am personally absolutely against the elimination of 2.2;
there still needs to be a way that potential registrants and end users have
a place they can go on ANY publicly accessible TLD to find out what the
registration policies are, If such information is being publicly withheld
by *any* TLD, open or closed, the metrics should enumerate that.

The problem with measuring "understanding" has to do with Rumsfeld's quote
about unknown unknowns. How can users be surveyed about understanding if
they don't even know what they don't know? I am very concerned about what I
see as a deliberate pattern of obfuscation. Also, the move from audits to
surveys makes results far less objective and far more susceptable to spin.

Let me be crystal clear. If someone wants to hide away a private TLD under
a corporate intranet or VPN, the operator has no obligation to the public.
The moment *any* TLD uses the public DNS -- the resource governed by ICANN
-- it owes the public a minimum level of disclosure.  *No exceptions.* Instead
of increasing obfuscation going forward, we should be working towards
measuring disclosure amongst both existing and future TLDs. I see the 3,1
revision as clawing back the public disclosure that we discussed and
reached consensus upon. The current objection to the previous "final"
version would gloss over the public's being denied necessary information --
closed TLD operators may not be compelled to disclose, but the metrics must
at least offer public transparency of such withholding.

I see this as very much an A&T issue. ICANN must always, by default, be
thinking of seeking more public transparency over that which it governs,
not less -- especially for an effort such as this one which is, by its
design, primarily intended to bolster public confidence.

I hope this sufficiently explains my rationale.

- Evan