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

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 25 November 2012 15:12, Neuman, Jeff <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


> 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.
>


Well, of course they're my opinions. I would remind, though, that I am here
not to protect nor serve any business interest, but instead to advance the
global public interest in fulfilment of my duty as an elected member of
 the ALAC. As such, "how business will be run" is necessarily less of a
concern of mine than advocating the public right to know about how
*its*public resource -- the DNS -- is being used, even if that chunks
of that
use are private.



> 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.
>


And that is your business interest ... to obfuscate such information. I,
OTOH, as someone advocating the public interest, believe that the public
should know basic information about how the .neustar domain is run because
it uses the public DNS. As I said before... if you want to run .neustar as
a VPN or private intranet, you have every right to keep your information
fully hidden. But by using the public domain naming system, you have an
obligation to provide to the public basic information, not differently from
an open TLD .... in case of possible spam, malware or other bad action
traceable to a .neustar domain.

It is only natutral that you want to disclose as little as possible. It is
also reasonable and incumbent on me to assert that such opacity is against
the public interest.


>  Nor should we have an obligation to do so.
>

Indeed, that is your opinion too. However, nothing about the fruits of this
WG would demand such disclosure, its goals are simply to measure whether
you disclose or not. As you are so ready to defend your right and reasons
not to disclose, surely you have nothing to hide from metrics that would
simply make public the level of your disclosure.



> 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.
>

Success is in the eye of the beholder, and there are indeed many possible
metrics of that success. It is not up to industry to dictate how those
outside the industry to measure that success, nor to artificially limit the
data measured in order to bias outcomes. Indeed, it is not in ICANN's
interest to be seen to support and encourage the hiding of information.

Neustar does not need to uphold the Affirmation of Committments. ICANN, on
the other hand, does. And the DNS is ICANN's resource, not Neustar's.



> 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.
>


And if there is an easy and clear way for the public to find out that
information, you will essentially satisfy the metrics that existed before
you launched your objection to the original "final" draft.

You say it is evident and understood. I want metrics that make it explicit.
It is against the public interest to assume end-users will guess at what
you have asserted.


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.
>

I make no such claim. I am asking that this WG, as a vehicle of enhancing
and gauging consumer trust and confidence, measure the extent to which
disclosure is offered. The bounds of this WG are just to measure, not to
regulate. Were I to advocate regulation this is not the vehicle for it.



>  You should not be using the Consumer Trust process as an avenue to argue
> for additional regulatory requirements on the registries.
>

See above, This WG is about measurement, not regulation.


> 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.
>

ICANN has a requirement of accountability and transparency in regards its
stewardship of the DNS. It is not for ICANN to judge separate levels of
accountability for "closed" versus "open" TLDs.

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.
>

I would simply note that this is the same group that was quite happy to
endorse unbiased measurements in the release of its so-called "final
report" after months of work, and up until your last-minute intervention.

I would also add in conclusion that the measurements being done here are
not about *registry* confidence in the new gTLD program but rather *consumer
* (that is, registrant and end user) confidence. So perhaps the target
audience for the work of this WG might be given the benefit of the doubt
regarding what measurements ought to be made, rather than those who would
be measured (and have a deeply vested interest in how the results are
interpreted).

- Evan