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

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

Evan,

Your generalizations about the public interest and disclosure are based only on 
your personal beliefs.  And while I appreciate that, lets look at the facts.


1.        DNS is a “public resource.”  Every single organization in the world 
that operates online in some way or fashion, whether a business, non-profit 
organization, individual, etc. uses public DNS.  Some also use private DNS, but 
all of them are also using public DNS.  Can you name any organization or 
individual that has a registered domain name that discloses what you expect 
them to disclose….yet they all use your so-called public resource.

2.       Obligation to disclose.  You seem to miss that the ICANN Agreement 
(and indeed the application to be a new TLD) contains a huge number of public 
disclosures on the operation of the TLD….which we believe provides the public 
with more than the basic information you reference below.

3.       “in case of possible spam, malware or other bad action traceable to a 
.neustar domain”….  Again, how does disclosing the benefits or restrictions, or 
even the registration policies of a closed TLD assist anyone with spam, malware 
or other bad action?  Remember, the ICANN Agreement does require every registry 
to disclose an abuse point of contact.  As a registry that has taken down more 
abusive domain name registrations than any other, and one involved in security 
circles around the globe, your statement on this point makes no sense.

4.       “The DNS is ICANN’s resource”….this is simply not true.  DNS Is a 
resource that is usable by every individual, organization, business, etc that 
has a presence on the Internet.  99% of DNS has nothing to do with ICANN.

5.       “I want metrics that make it explicit”.  Again, I am sorry you missed 
the call this past week, but you are trying to create new requirements for 
registries that are not present in the guidebook or the ICANN Registry 
Agreement.  To create new metrics based on obligations that are not contained 
in the Guidebook or the Agreement is to set the program up for failure.  If you 
wanted those explicit disclosures, the time to get that as a requirement was 
during the years spent debating the Guidebook or the Registry Agreement.  That 
time has long passed.

6.       We are all vested in the program, whether it be individuals, 
consumers, intellectual property owners, ISPs, businesses, governments, and 
yes, even registries and registrars.

My interventions were meant to ensure that the GNSO approves the letter and can 
send it on to the Board.  Without such interventions, the Registries and the 
Registrars (which include representation of the Applicants) will not endorse 
the letter.  With the interventions, it has a lot better chance of success.  My 
goal has always been to ensure that the fruits of your months work makes it to 
the Board and I believe with the changes in this last draft it has that chance 
now. As I stated on the call, I believe the registries will be able to support 
the letter (although I need to send it back to them for a final review).  I ask 
that in the spirit of compromise, the WG approve this latest draft and I will 
do my share in trying to get the GNSO to approve the letter to send to the 
Board.  I believe the changes are reasonable and do not alter the true meaning 
of the criteria that was set.

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 6:05 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Michael R. Graham; Berry Cobb; Steve DelBianco; 
gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] RE: updated advice on consumer metrics, per 
20-November WG conference

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