[ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP

[Alan Greenberg]

Thanks Carlton. But after due consideration. I don't think I will 
include that in the formal statement.  :-)

Alan

At 31/03/2013 06:16 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote:
>Um, harsh you say?  By gum.......I say again, it isn't worth a warm 
>bucket of spit.
>
>-Carlton
>
>==============================
>Carlton A Samuels
>Mobile: 876-818-1799
>Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
>=============================
>
>
>On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment (PIC)
>Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC statement was required.
>
>Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my
>to follow up on it.
>
>I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory.
>The DRP can be found at
><http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf.
>
>The statement can be found at 
><https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg
>and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than
>those I would normally draft.
>
>Alan
>
>========================
>ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure
>
>The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement of
>the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments.
>
>Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was
>introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be
>"enforced by ICANN"
>(<http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm).
>
>When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced"
>included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact
>meant, "by ICANN".
>
>As it stands, the process:
>
>- Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently;
>
>- Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to the violation;
>
>- May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so.
>
>Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an
>objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable
>harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only sanctions
>ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not being paid.
>
>Using this same standard of language, one could say that "trade-marks
>are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP.
>
>There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least
>part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new gTLD
>applicants to stand by their application promises once the new TLD is
>delegated. This hope has not been satisfied.
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>