[ALAC] New draft on Public Interest Commitment DisputeResolution Procedure

[Rinalia Abdul Rahim]

Hi, Holly.  We missed you and Sala during the call.

We didn't have sufficient time to discuss the BA-related events in the ALAC
call.  I have a backlog of things to do before I can get to the
multistakeholder policy roundtable.  Will touch base with Olivier and come
back with thoughts.

Best regards,

Rinalia




On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 7:30 PM, <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:

>  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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>