Dan...sorry I did not reply to this sooner -- traveling and health issues.

Apologies also for attributing Bill's quote to Avri.

See below for answers to your questions.


-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Krimm <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Jul 5, 2011 4:22 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments?
>
>Beau,
>
>This is a little puzzling to me:
>
>> ... privacy
>> [defined within the ICANN scope as registration abuse, safety, and
>> stability]; WHOIS;
>
>Is there a place in the CC for individual domain registrants, and
>consideration of protection of privacy of personal registrant data in the
>WHOIS database?

*************[I think that is a question we would have to pose to the membership of the proposed constituency. I would say we are trying to seek, as much as possible, a voice for end-users who don't register domains.]
>
>Some registrars offer a proxy level of privacy, but this is not ICANN
>policy per se.  This is not just a free speech issue (protection of
>anonymous speech), but also an issue of being harassed personally by
>private entities like marketers/data-miners, identity thieves, stalkers,
>etc.

[Personally, my jury is still out on the stalker/harassment issue. I've heard the argument raised for years. Again, personally, I own three or four .com names and to date have experienced no such problems other than occasional bogus solicitations from companies offering services. Again, however, that's a personal and anecdotal perspective. The members of the proposed constituency may have other opinions, and it would be interesting to see the results of the studies the GNSO has commissioned on WHOIS -- one of them recently funded for over a hundred grand, I think I heard. 

Eventually it seems to me an evolution toward a business tier and a personal tier needs to happen. Consumers can't be expected to defend the right of "commercial enterprises" to protect their anonymity. They may be expected, in my view, to defend the rights of others who register domains, or themselves if they choose to register one in the future, to be protected from harmful use of their personal data. Yes, I know the flaw in this argument is the current system does not distinguish intent, and the bad guys will always try to disguise themselves. But I don't believe registrars like Network Solutions should be pushing their monthly privacy protection services on everybody under the guise of protecting their privacy, for instance. Privacy protection is a lucrative business with a huge social cost.]
>
>While it may be less common right now for "garden-variety individual
>consumers" to own 2LDs, speaking as one myself this may well become more
>prevalent over time, if more consumers start seeing the advantages of
>having a personal email and/or web domain (cloud-mail without giving your
>data to Google, for example).
>
>Am I welcome in your constituency as a personal, individual 2LD owner
>without a corporate shield who wants to protect my personal data privacy
>in the WHOIS DB?  I certainly feel mostly like a "consumer" -- certainly
>not a "small business" (while my 2LD is in the .com TLD, I don't use it
>for commercial purposes, and I am an individual NCUC/NCSG member).
>
>Thanks,
>Dan

********************[To give you a rather bureaucratic answer, Dan, as long as you meet the membership requirements in the proposed charter, sure, you would be welcome to join.]


>
>-- 
>Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the author alone and
>do not necessarily reflect any position of the author's employer.
>
>
>
>On Mon, July 4, 2011 8:16 pm, Beau Brendler wrote:
>> Avri wrote:
>>
>>>>But I still have to say that after a couple of years of this being on
>>>> the table I've still not heard a really crisp and clear definition of
>>>> what it would work on substantively that isn't already being followed,
>>>> however unevenly, by existing groupings and people.  Maybe if there's a
>>>> new construction with a big sign it will draw new bodies into the
>>>> ICANNsphere and increase the level of engagement on a distinctive set of
>>>> issues, but one does have to wonder.<<<
>>
>> Having written the charter more than three years ago now, and having seen
>> it go through several rewrites over the course of at least three, possibly
>> four public comment periods, I can tell you what you are looking for is in
>> the words of the mission statement:
>>
>> "...serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the
>> Internet and defined within the scope of ICANN.  The major areas of
>> consumer interest are fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, and privacy
>> [defined within the ICANN scope as registration abuse, safety, and
>> stability]; WHOIS; the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the behavior
>> of registrars, registries, resellers, domainers and other entities
>> [defined within ICANN's scope as "compliance"]..."
>>
>> This language was written in part out of frustration with the then
>> At-Large, and with the then NCUC. The at-large did not take much of an
>> interest then on these issues; its interests seemed primarily in
>> self-analysis and realizing the dream of new gTLDs. The NCUC, much smaller
>> then, was focused on issues of free speech and freedom of expression, to
>> the degree that its ideology ruled out just about any other issue as
>> co-opted by moneyed interests. In addition, it appeared, to me anyway, the
>> NCUC's focus or hope was to limit ICANN's power and scope as much as
>> possible, and make it go away. Actually, in my opinion, if ICANN doesn't
>> do a better job of enforcing contracts and compelling compliance, then it
>> should go away, because it would then be a big waste of time and money and
>> a fraudulent construct that does more harm than good by pretending to do
>> something it isn't. But it doesn't appear to be going away soon so its
>> behavior needs to be challenged on behalf of the public interest. The
>> contracted parties should not be winning every argument the way they do
>> now.
>>
>> If it's the name of the constituency that seems to confuse people, well,
>> change its name to the contract compliance constituency or something. But
>> arguments for its continued existence or non-existence should be based on
>> merit, not on whether it may or may not have too many quasi-commercial
>> parties involved. That's just a smokescreen -- the consumer constituency's
>> charter had always been much more stringent about who it would or would
>> not allow to be a member based on commercial ties or interests than the
>> NCUC's or the NCSG's. The way the consumer constituency's charter has been
>> written, you can't be a member and own a registrar. You can't make a
>> principal living off consulting for governments or companies on ICANN
>> matters and be a member. And so on. We need to move past that now.
>>
>> If it takes constituencies to flesh out the NCSG's scope of policy work to
>> include broader matters than freedom of speech and expression, then new
>> constituencies should be welcomed, not feared. We need more people working
>> on RAA issues and contract compliance and defining registration abuse and
>> the rights of registrants (and how their behavior effects the general
>> public) outside the core group of people doing it now, who also tend to be
>> the same people who are interested in seeing the consumer constituency go
>> forward).
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>>>From: Rosemary Sinclair <[log in to unmask]>
>>>Sent: Jun 30, 2011 3:34 AM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments?
>>>
>>>Hi all
>>>
>>>Here's the link Avri has set up to the docs...
>>> https://community.icann.org/display/gnsononcomstake/Consumer+Constituency+%28CC%29+-+candidate
>>>
>>>Here's the submitted version of the Mission....
>>>
>>>1.2	Mission
>>>The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the
>>> conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the Internet and defined
>>> within the scope of ICANN.  The major areas of consumer interest are
>>> fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, and privacy [defined within the
>>> ICANN scope as registration abuse, safety, and stability]; WHOIS; the
>>> Registrar Accreditation Agreement and the behavior of registrars,
>>> registries, resellers, domainers and other entities [defined within
>>> ICANN's scope as "compliance"]; and new gTLDs.  The focus of the
>>> Consumers Constituency will be to ensure that consumers' safety,
>>> security, stability, usability, access, and other appropriate concerns
>>> regarding the DNS are adequately represented within ICANN policy
>>> development.
>>>
>>>Let's get feedback around the version of the Charter that reflects the
>>> interest of the people who support the
>>>Proposed constituency - we might be able to find a way through or at
>>> least clarify the views
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Rosemary
>>>
>>>Rosemary Sinclair
>>>Director | External Relations
>>>Australian School of Business | Level 3 Building L5 | UNSW | Sydney  NSW
>>>  2052  
>>>Direct:  +61 2 9385 6228 | Fax: +61 2 9385 5933
>>>Email: [log in to unmask]  www.asb.unsw.edu.au
>>>
>>>       EQUIS accredited for 5 years
>>>
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
>>> William Drake
>>>Sent: Wednesday, 29 June 2011 4:42 PM
>>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>>Subject: Re: Results of the Chartering process
>>>
>>>Hi
>>>
>>>On Jun 28, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Avri Doria wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I would like to point out that there is nothing wrong in us helping
>>>> the commercial actors in the Consumer area to find their way to the
>>>> CSG.  Just as the CSG has leant a helping hand in the NCSG growth, I
>>>> think it appropriate that we should now try to help them as much, not
>>>> only to show our gratitude but also to allow them to experience the
>>>> same benefits we have found in diversity.
>>>
>>>Diabolical, I love it. Certainly, if there must be a new "consumer" space
>>> then it should cut across both SGs.  But I still have to say that after a
>>> couple of years of this being on the table I've still not heard a really
>>> crisp and clear definition of what it would work on substantively that
>>> isn't already being followed, however unevenly, by existing groupings and
>>> people.  Maybe if there's a new construction with a big sign it will draw
>>> new bodies into the ICANNsphere and increase the level of engagement on a
>>> distinctive set of issues, but one does have to wonder...
>>>
>>>More generally, while I take Avri's earlier point that irrespective of
>>> what we were discussing in the past re: focusing on interest groups,
>>>
>>>> Constituencies mean Nomcom committee seats and the possibility of
>>>> filling comments that the Board is willing to read because they are
>>>> from a known entity, and because any resources from ICANn will be given
>>>> to constituencies
>>>
>>>I'm still having difficulty getting my head around the substantive
>>> arguments for proliferation.  The Academic Constituency concept is a case
>>> in point.  Unless we're talking about higher ed operational issues (which
>>> presumably would fit in NPOC), what set of GNSO-related issues are
>>> specific and distinct to academics and not addressed by NCUC?  If,
>>> alternatively, having distinctive issues to work on is unnecessary and
>>> we're viewing constituencies more as sort of affinity subgroups, here too
>>> I have to wonder about the need.  Academics, including those here, have a
>>> variety of intellectual/political orientations and areas of
>>> specialization, there's no particular "academic perspective" that needs
>>> to represented and isn't now, and we already work together in NCUC.  As
>>> to the Avri's organizational points, we already don't have enough time to
>>> file comments and having a constituency might not change that, and
>>> resources have hardly flowed to our existing constituency (whereas I
>>> couldn't help noticing Danny Younger saying on an ALAC list that At-Large
>>> and ALAC Support Activities are budgeted at $5,427,000.).  The Nomcom
>>> committee seat case is more obvious; there was recently a brief
>>> discussion (i.e. about three emails) concerning the "academic" slot on
>>> the nomcom, which someone in the ALACsphere argued had to remain set
>>> aside only for university network administration folks.I pointed out that
>>> academia's a bit broader than that but nobody replied so voila it stayed
>>> that way..
>>>
>>>Anyway, if people decide they really want to do it I imagine I'd join an
>>> Academic Constituency, but first wouldn't it be useful to specify the
>>> potential benefits of launching multiple constituencies in NCSG.?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Jun 2011, at 16:12, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi - I support the concept of a CC in both the CSG and the NCSG. Not
>>>>> that it's NCSG business to push for one in the CSG, but the
>>>>> possibility should clear the way for a purely NC CC to be formed
>>>>> within the NCSG. If one does eventually form within the CSG, the two
>>>>> CCs could work together to advance a fuller consumer agenda and
>>>>> awareness. For now, the CC that could form within the NCSG will have
>>>>> to follow both the newly-approved constituency formation process AND
>>>>> abide by the new NCSG Charter (once formally approved by the NCSG
>>>>> membership).
>>>>>
>>>>> On a possible Academic Constituency, Rosemary and I thought it would
>>>>> make sense given (1) the number of individuals that are academics and
>>>>> researchers who span a number of specialty areas, from technical to
>>>>> law to political science and who are already involved in NC issues;
>>>>> (2) the possibility that NCSG members can join more than one
>>>>> constituency; (3) the possibility that some academics and researchers
>>>>> may wish to be more closely associated with an Academic Constituency
>>>>> than any other and so choose to join that rather than, say, NCUC or
>>>>> CC; (4) the indications from the Board, Nom Com etc. that greater
>>>>> academic participation at ICANN is to be welcomed; and (5) the value
>>>>> that an Academic Constituency may be able to provide, in the form of
>>>>> papers, public comments and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rafik, since you were the NCSG Councilor the Board thought would be
>>>>> the one to reach out to the academic community, I'd be interested
>>>>> (like Rosemary) to hear your thoughts as I don't want to impose or
>>>>> tread on anyone's turf either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope everyone who was in Singapore had a productive meeting and an
>>>>> enjoyable visit, and are safely home without suffering too much jet
>>>>> lag!
>>>>>
>>>>> Mary
>>>>>
>>