[ALAC] New draft on Public Interest Commitment DisputeResolution Procedure

[h.raiche at internode.on.net]

 Hi Rinalia - and everyone 
 
 In the ALAC meeting, did you manage to discuss the schedule for the 
BA meeting? I am hoping that we will continue with a Multi Stakeholder 
Forum - the two we have had have been really popular and successful 
(with deep congratulations to Rinalia). For BA, while I suggested that 
it would be a good time to look at EWG, it would be an even better 
time to look at the gTLD processes (or lack thereof) and - at this 
late stage - see what can still be rescued. I hope this idea was 
discussed and adopted 
 
 Holly 
 
 On Wed 28/08/13 5:24 PM , Rinalia Abdul Rahim 
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com sent: 
 The logical guess would be because the text is being negotiated by 
the 
 parties, Olivier. Alan may know more. 
 
 Rinalia 
 On Aug 28, 2013 3:47 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond"  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 [2] 
 > 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 
[3] 
 > 
 > So how did things remain as they were circulated by ICANN Staff to 
 > Registries? 
 > 
 > Kind regards, 
 > 
 > Olivier 
 > 
 _______________________________________________ 
 ALAC mailing list 
 ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org [4] 
 https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] 
 
 At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] 
 ALAC Working Wiki: 
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC 
[7]) 
 
  
 
Links: 
------ 
[1] mailto:ocl at gih.com 
[2] https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg 
[3] 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/msg00010.html 
[4] mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org 
[5] https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 
[6] http://www.atlarge.icann.org 
[7] 
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC