[ALAC] New draft on Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure

Rinalia Abdul Rahim rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 07:54:26 UTC 2013

The logical guess would be because the text is being negotiated by the
parties, Olivier.  Alan may know more.

On Aug 28, 2013 3:47 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl at gih.com> wrote:

> Dear Rinalia,
> thank you for flagging this and monitoring it. It is clear that if the
> draft remains as is to become policy, it is unacceptable. I have
> actually touched on this in my meeting with Compliance in the Los
> Angeles ICANN offices in August.
> On 28/08/2013 03:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
> > *What is interesting:*
> > 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that
> > files/reports  has to demonstrate that it has been harmed).
> I told Compliance this was unacceptable.
> > 2. No mention of fees for filing violation.  Also, unclear who will bear
> > the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement.  ICANN
> tends
> > to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties.
> At this stage, nobody could give me an answer on this.
> > 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and
> > complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a
> > "conference" or consultation.  If filings are incomplete or the reporter
> > doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped.
> I told Compliance this was unacceptable.
> > 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record,
> > which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration.
> I told Compliance that they had no legal basis to be able to do this. It
> is outside their mandate to "ban" someone from a system since the only
> parties they can "ban" are parties they have a contract with.
> If they do restrict use of the tools with Acceptable Use Policies they
> will need to demonstrate that these tools do no restrict the ICANN
> Public Interest mission.
> The ALAC filed a Statement about this in April 2013:
> https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg
> Clearly, the current draft does not appear to have taken the ICANN
> Statement in account. Oje cannot fault the ICANN Staff summary of
> comments which was, it appears, well executed:
> http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/msg00010.html
> So how did things remain as they were circulated by ICANN Staff to
> Registries?
> Kind regards,
> Olivier

More information about the ALAC mailing list