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

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Evan,

While I appreciate your personal opinions about closed TLDs, your assertions on 
duties owed to the public are merely your own and one that I believes ignores 
the realities of how business will be run with the closed TLDs.  ICANN has an 
obligation to encourage competition and innovation as well as the obligations 
of accountability and transparency you site.

As the owner/operator of the .Neustar TLD, I can tell you that it makes no 
sense to have a page on our main corporate site describing our registration 
policies, benefits, restrictions, etc. of the TLD itself.   Nor should we have 
an obligation to do so.  Moreover, the success or failure of the new gTLD 
program should not be judged even in part on whether closed TLD operators let 
consumers know who can have a .closedTLD name especially when everyone who goes 
to a .neustar domain name understands that all of the content on the site is 
owned, operated or licensed to Neustar.   Just like there is no policy right 
now publicly posted for those that can have a Neustar.biz third level space 
(and we do have a few), there should be no policy statement as to who can have 
a second level domain under .neustar.  Yet, it will be evident (and understood) 
that the .neustar TLD is owned and operated by Neustar (just as it is clear 
that Neustar.biz) and that only those authorized by Neustar will get a .neustar 
domain.

Also, each Registry Operator has contractual obligations to ICANN (as a 
privately contracted party).  ICANN is NOT a governmental body and does not 
have general regulatory authority.  Yet, your statements seems to imply a 
desire for ICANN to have more of a regulatory role and require public 
disclosures which are not in the Guidebook or even the ICANN Registry 
Agreements.  You should not be using the Consumer Trust process as an avenue to 
argue for additional regulatory requirements on the registries.  The time is 
well past for that to happen.  Incidentally, the ATRT does not even envision 
such an increased regulatory role, though you seem to site it as a basis for 
your arguments.  If you can show us where in the ATRT it even implies that 
“registry operators” owe more transparency to the world about it commercial 
operations.  It is ICANN as an organization that has more accountability and 
transparency requirements.

I am sorry you missed the call this past week, and this e-mail probably does 
not do justice to the groups discussions, but the group seemed to agree that 
this path made more sense.

Thanks.



Jeffrey J. Neuman
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Business Affairs


From: evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:evanleibovitch@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Evan Leibovitch
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2012 2:16 PM
To: Michael R. Graham
Cc: Berry Cobb; Steve DelBianco; gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx; Neuman, Jeff
Subject: Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] RE: updated advice on consumer metrics, per 
20-November WG conference

Hi Michael,

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