Hi NCSG, We dissented from this recommendation in Council, but were outvoted. Do we want to send a letter of our own to the Board? Here was a letter I wrote to the drafting team, that we could repurpose for the Board: 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. Thanks, --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [council] Advice requested by the ICANN Board Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:33:05 -0000 From: Jonathan Robinson <[log in to unmask]> To: Steve Crocker <[log in to unmask]> CC: <[log in to unmask]>, "Bill Graham" <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]>, "Bill Graham" <[log in to unmask]>, "'Glen de Saint Géry'" <[log in to unmask]>, <[log in to unmask]> Dear Steve, Please see the attached regarding consumer trust, consumer choice and competition in the context of the domain name system per the 10 December 2010 ICANN board approved resolution (2010.12.10.06). Best wishes, Jonathan Jonathan Robinson Chair ICANN GNSO Council <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask] skype: jonathan.m.r