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

Carlton Samuels carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Wed Aug 28 14:23:59 UTC 2013

Well knock me down and steal mah teeth!  Is there now any doubt that there
is no intent to make this PICDRP anything but a PR hack job?

This 'repeat offender' designation - of the person who complains no less! -
gave me a flashback to the old Soviet system and this criminal offence they
had called 'malicious hooliganism'. If the dumb cluck were to complain
about any aspect of the glorious system, the fellas would slap 'em with
this charge......and the poor slob is best advised to start dressing for a
vacation in Siberia.

What if there were repeated breaches of these solemn PICs? And where is the
statement for their punishment I ask you?  I say again. It ain't worth a
warm bucket of spit.


Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
*Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim <
rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear ALAC Colleagues,
> See attached as FYI - Latest draft on new gTLD Public Interest Commitment
> Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) sent by ICANN staff to Registries
> recently and will be up for discussion during the Registry call on
> Thursday.
> *What is interesting:*
> 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that
> files/reports  has to demonstrate that it has been harmed).
> 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.
> 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.
> 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record,
> which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration.
> Interesting reading.  The ALAC (and possibly the GAC) may want to make a
> case (jointly or separately) for third party reporting when comments are
> called for.  At the moment, this is a draft for consideration based on
> discussions in Durban by the relevant parties, but it would be good to keep
> an eye on its progress.
> Best regards,
> Rinalia
> ** **
> _______________________________________________
> 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)

More information about the ALAC mailing list