It's got my support.

Nicolas
On 19/07/2012 4:50 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:
>
> Wendy,
>
> I strongly endorse this statement and hope we can make it a NSCG-wide one.
>
> Milton L. Mueller
>
> Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>
> Internet Governance Project
>
> http://blog.internetgovernance.org
>
> *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf 
> Of *Robin Gross
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 19, 2012 11:50 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [PC-NCSG] Consumer trust: continued 
> disagreement over the premise
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
>
> *From: *Wendy Seltzer <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> *Subject: [PC-NCSG] Fwd: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over 
> the premise*
>
> *Date: *July 15, 2012 11:27:56 AM PDT
>
> *To: *NCSG-Policy <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> I've written up my concerns with the "consumer metrics on trust" work.
> If others agree, we may want to lodge a formal NCSG objection.
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Consumer trust: continued disagreement over the premise
> Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2012 12:05:19 -0400
> From: local Wendy <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
> To: Consumer CCI DT <[log in to unmask] 
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>>
>
> Hi Consumer Metrics team,
>
> I write because I continue to have strong disagreement with the "trust"
> metrics and their presentation. Since I have been unable to make the
> calls due to persistent scheduling conflicts, I wanted to spell out the
> concerns I discussed with several of you in Prague. I appreciate the
> work that has gone into the metrics, but believe that the "trust"
> metrics rely on a faulty premise, that gTLDs should be predictable,
> rather than open to innovative and unexpected new uses.
>
> The current draft mistakes a platform, a gTLD, for an end-product. A key
> value of a platform is its generativity -- its ability to be used and
> leveraged by third parties for new, unexpected purposes. Precisely
> because much innovation is unanticipated, it cannot be predicted for a
> chart of measures. Moreover, incentives on the intermediaries to control
> their platforms translate into restrictions on end-users' free
> expression and innovation.
>
> Just as we would not want to speak about "trust" in a pad of printing
> paper, on which anyone could make posters, and we don't ask a road
> system to interrogate what its drivers plan to do when they reach their
> destinations, I think we shouldn't judge DNS registries on their users'
> activities.
>
> ICANN's planned reviews of and targets for gTLD success should not
> interfere with market decisions about the utility of various offerings.
>
> In particular, I disagree with the second group of "trust" metrics, the
> " Measures related to confidence that TLD operators are fulfilling
> promises and complying with ICANN policies and applicable national
> laws:" namely,
> * Relative incidence of UDRP & URS Complaints; Relative incidence of
> UDRP & URS Decisions against registrant;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of intellectual property claims
> relating to Second Level domain names, and relative cost of overall
> domain name policing measured at: immediately prior to new gTLD
> delegation and at 1 and 3 years after delegation;
> * Quantity of Compliance Concerns w/r/t Applicable National Laws,
> including reported data security breaches;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of Domain Takedowns;
> * Quantity of spam received by a "honeypot" email address in each new 
> gTLD;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of fraudulent transactions caused by
> phishing sites in new gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected phishing sites using new
> gTLDs;
> * Quantity and relative incidence of detected botnets and malware using
> new gTLDs
> * Quantity and relative incidence of sites found to be dealing in or
> distributing identities and account information used in identity 
> fraud; and
> * Quantity and relative incidence of complaints regarding inaccurate,
> invalid, or suspect WHOIS records in new gTLD
>
> Separately, I disagree with the targets for the "redirection,"
> "duplicates," and "traffic" measures. All of these presume that the use
> for new gTLDs is to provide the same type of service to different
> parties, while some might be used to provide different services to
> parties including existing registrants.
>
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> +1 
> 617.863.0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
>
> -- 
> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> +1 
> 617.863.0613
> Fellow, Yale Law School Information Society Project
> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University
> http://wendy.seltzer.org/
> https://www.chillingeffects.org/
> https://www.torproject.org/
> http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PC-NCSG mailing list
> [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> http://mailman.ipjustice.org/listinfo/pc-ncsg
>