NetChoice comment on new gTLD draft guidebook, Module 2
(PDF attached and text shown below) NetChoice Comment regarding Draft Applicant Guidebook for new gTLDs NetChoice has consistently advocated at ICANN for measures to raise the integrity of users¹ Internet experience, while at the same time increasing the Internet¹s availability to the next billion users. In a hearing before the U.S. Congress regarding ICANN¹s approach to Internet governance, we testified about threats to the integrity of the domain name system from abuses such as fraud and cyber squatting[1] . In the current draft of its new gTLD plan, we believes that ICANN has neglected to articulate sufficient processes and criteria to adequately protect consumers and e-commerce businesses from the risks of abusive registrations. NetChoice supports comments of the ICANN Business Constituency and other groups raising similar concerns over abusive registrations. Rather than repeat those specific concerns here, we offer two suggested improvements to the draft Evaluation Questions and Criteria that ICANN published as attachments to Module 2[2]. Namely, Raise the curtain; and Raise the bar. 1. Raise the curtain. Provide for greater transparency and stakeholder inquiry of an applicant¹s proposed mechanism to minimize abusive registrations and other activities that affect the legal rights of others. As other commenters have noted, there is not yet sufficient detail in the draft new gTLD process to allow stakeholders to conclude whether the process satisfies their concerns about abusive registrations. But even after adding more detail, ICANN cannot be expected to anticipate every contingency and situation encountered in actual applications. This reality makes it all the more essential that ICANN makes its evaluation process transparent to stakeholders, once live applications enter the process. ICANN¹s draft process promises ³a process where new gTLD applicants are required to describe their Rights Protection Mechanism (RPM) within their applications. These RPMs will be published to the community at the time applications are also made public.² However, transparency means more than just publishing the plans included with an application. An essential aspect of transparency is to invite stakeholders to query the applicant about specifics and contingencies regarding their plan for rights protection. Moreover, ICANN must require applicants to provide substantive responses to these queries, and to publish questions and responses for public review. Only this level of transparency will enable the stakeholder community to evaluate proposed mechanisms and compare them to superior mechanisms offered by other applicants. 2. Raise the bar. Increase the criteria for earning a minimum acceptable score on proposed policies to minimize abusive registrations. Question 31 in Evaluation Questions and Criteria for module 2 is among those Technical & Operational criteria which ³must be scored a 1 or more or the application will fail the evaluation.² Question 31 would be scored with a passing grade if the applicant merely ³commits to and describes protection of rights mechanisms.² NetChoice strongly encourages ICANN to ?raise the bar¹ in order for an applicant to earn a passing grade for minimizing abusive registrations and other activities that affect the legal rights of others. A passing score of 1 on Question 31 should only be given to applicants whose proposed mechanism meets registry best practices for minimizing abusive registrations. The standard, or ?bar¹ for minimizing abusive registrations should be set by looking at the best mechanisms employed by existing registries or proposed by other registry applicants in the new round of gTLDs. The transparency measures described above will permit stakeholders to discover and reveal whether the applicant has truly cleared the bar for minimizing abusive registrations. Accordingly, the scoring rules applied by ICANN should not give a passing grade to applicants who demonstrably fail to meet registry best practices to minimize abuse. Conclusion Even before any new gTLDs are introduced, there is clearly a growing problem with phishing, identity theft, and consumer fraud all of which are enabled by abusive and obviously fraudulent registrations. Taken together, the two measures suggested here would help ICANN to demonstrate that the new gTLD process will at least ?do no harm¹ to the integrity of users¹ Internet experience. Steve DelBianco Executive Director www.NetChoice.org [1] http://www.mcgeorge.edu/documents/centers/global/ICANN Internet Governance - Is It Working.pdf [2] http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-evaluation-criteria-24oct08-e n.pdf Attachment:
NetChoice comment on new gTLD.pdf |