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? 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. 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 -- 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 >>>> >