I agree that this looks like a proposal for a "law enforcement constituency" or perhaps an initiative supported by companies who sell commercial products related to spam, phishing, etc.   Swapping out the words "commercial" for "economic" in the draft below show how ill-suited this proposal is for the noncommercial group.

I find it troubling that a small aspect (law enforcement) of a much larger Consumer Agenda could be given such a broad platform to claim to represent The Consumer.  A consumer agenda is much more than law enforcement concerns - which have a place in the debate, but is better suited to a home in GAC where govts belong, or the CSG where commercial interests belong.

Robin


On Jul 8, 2011, at 8:12 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> Rosemary:
> I don't like these changes at all. It basically tries to identify the word "consumer" with a specific issue perspective that may or may not be supported by consumers. That's another reason why I am not a supporter of this whole idea. 
> 
> Many consumers are interested in privacy and in securing their personal information from public view. That's an element of consumer choice. That's why millions of consumers pay extra for proxy registration services.  
> 
> Your redefinition of the "consumer" agenda is really a law enforcement agenda. While there is room for legitimate debate around this, I think it not honest to equate law enforcement and copyright interests with consumers. That's just a rhetorical game. 
> 
> If you really want to be part of a consumer constituency, let's allow consumers orgs to decide for themselves what services the broader goals of competition, consumer trust and consumer choice.
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NCSG-NCUC [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
>> Behalf Of Rosemary Sinclair
>> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 3:20 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] DRAFT Consumer Constituency objective -
>> comments
>> 
>> Hi all
>> 
>> Here's an attempt to take the next step - happy for any feedback
>> 
>> Avri - could we put my DRAFT up so people could make their changes...
>> 
>> I've included the NCSG-EC version from earlier this year (1) and my own
>> DRAFT (2)
>> 
>> 1) Consumer Constituency – NCSG EC comments March 2011
>> 
>> The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the
>> conduit for consumer interests as they relate those areas of the Internet
>> within the scope of ICANN.
>> 
>> As representatives of consumers who are using the Internet to purchase or
>> use goods and services the Constituency will focus on the economic aspects
>> of the DNS that impact on consumers’ safety, security, stability, usability,
>> access and other appropriate concerns to ensure these are adequately
>> represented within ICANN policy development.
>> 
>> As such the consumers Constituency will promote competition, consumer
>> trust and consumer choice.
>> 
>> 
>> 2) Consumer Constituency – Rosemary DRAFT July 2011
>> 
>> The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the
>> conduit for consumers’ economic interests (fraud, spam, phishing, identity
>> theft and privacy) as they relate to those areas of the Internet within the
>> scope of ICANN (registration abuse, WHOIS, RAA, Compliance, new gTLDs).
>> 
>> As representatives of consumers’ economic interests, the Constituency will
>> focus on aspects of the DNS that impact on safety, security, stability,
>> usability, access and other appropriate concerns to ensure these are
>> adequately represented within ICANN policy development.
>> 
>> As such the Consumer Constituency will promote competition, consumer
>> trust and consumer choice.
>> 
>> 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: Beau Brendler [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Tuesday, 5 July 2011 1:16 PM
>> To: Rosemary Sinclair; [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Consumer Constituency Charter - comments?
>> 
>> 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+Constit
>> uency+%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
>>> 
>>> 




IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: [log in to unmask]