[ALAC] Revised statement on the PIC DRP

[JJS]

*Evan, Rinalia, Alan,*
*
*
*clear, forceful, effective! Very good.*
*
*
*Jean-Jacques.*


2013/4/11 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>

> The original draft and discussion can be found at
> https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg. Thanks to
> Rinalia and Evan for a great revision (which I have slightly tweaked here).
>
>
> ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure
>
> The ALAC is deeply troubled/concerned by the
> proposed enforcement mechanism for the new gTLD
> Public Interest Commitments, which appears to be ineffectual by design.
>
> Although described as a Dispute Resolution
> Procedure, the Public Interest Commitment (PIC)
> was introduced to the community as a process that
> 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
> ).
>
> Many in our community were led to believe that
> “enforced by ICANN” meant that the PIC process
> would include an ICANN Compliance connection and
> that ICANN itself would carry out the enforcement.
>
> As the PIC is currently presented, the process:
>     * Requires possibly significant fees with
> magnitudes that are currently unknown;
>     * Requires that the complainant demonstrates
> measurable harm due to the violation;
>     * May be filed by ICANN, but without any obligation for it to do so.
>
> Given that no exception is noted in the PIC
> process, ICANN could presumably only file an
> objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that
> it was measurably harmed.  This situation recalls
> the sad period when ICANN applied RAA sanctions only when it was not paid.
>
> The UDRP, where decisions are outsourced like
> those of the proposed PICDRP, was deliberately
> designed to operate independently – the opposite
> of "by ICANN" as claimed by ICANN for the PIC.
> And unlike trademark claimants using the UDRP,
> members of the public should not be expected to
> have financial – or even direct – interest in
> order to complain when PICs are not being fulfilled.
>
> The ALAC believes that ICANN made a serious
> mistake in not requiring all new gTLD applicants
> to stand by their application promises in the
> form of contractual compliance.  We expected that
> the PIC, despite being a late addition to the
> application process, would be used as a crucial
> mechanism to uphold the interest of the public
> and the end user.  As proposed, the PIC
> implementation is weak with features that
> actively discourage and penalize
> complainants.  The PIC Dispute Resolution
> Procedure as it is currently presented provides
> little leverage for the Global Public Interest
> and it is therefore unacceptable.  We firmly
> believe that ICANN must bestow upon the PIC
> process the true force of responsible and competent enforcement.
> _______________________________________________
> ALAC mailing list
> ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> ALAC Working Wiki:
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>