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 >