[ALAC] OOPS!: Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments
alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Wed Feb 13 03:46:51 UTC 2013
If you try to look at the new agreements pointed
to bt the public comment form, they don't work. I
am guessing that when the launched the "new
improved" new gTLD Micro Site today, they broke those links.
I have let a few people know.
At 12/02/2013 10:19 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>The 2nd URL is missing a character. The correct one is:
>At 12/02/2013 10:11 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>>>On behalf of the Board, I write to follow up
>>>on our commitment in our letter of 16 January 2013, to provide
>>>a report on our efforts to address one item of
>>>advice contained in the GAC Toronto Communiqué.
>>>In its Toronto Communiqué, the GAC requested a
>>>written briefing from the ICANN Board on "how
>>>ICANN will ensure that any commitments made by
>>>[New gTLD] applicants, in their applications or as a
>>>result of any subsequent changes, will be
>>>overseen and enforced by ICANN." The GAC advised the Board
>>>that, "it is necessary for all of these
>>>statements of commitment and objectives to be transformed into
>>>binding contractual commitments, subject to compliance oversight by ICANN."
>>>In our letter of 16 January 2013, we indicated
>>>that there was no existing mechanism in the New gTLD
>>>program to address the GAC's concerns. To
>>>respond to the GAC's advice and the concerns raised by
>>>others in the community, staff was asked to
>>>develop possible mechanisms to transform applicant
>>>commitments (either as set forth within their
>>>applications or arising from early warning discussions
>>>between applicants and governments) into
>>>contractually binding and enforceable obligations. The Board
>>>considered the staff proposals at the Board
>>>Workshop in Los Angeles on 31 January 2013 - 2 February
>>>I am happy to report that ICANN has undertaken
>>>specific steps to address this item of GAC advice. On 1
>>>February 2013, the New gTLD Program Committee
>>>adopted a resolution directing ICANN's President and
>>>CEO to seek public comment on a proposed
>>>"Public Interest Commitments" specification ("PIC Spec") to
>>>be added to each new gTLD registry agreement.
>>>On 5 February 2013, ICANN opened a public
>>>comment forum seeking comment on a revised draft of the
>>>New gTLD Registry Agreement that includes the new PIC Spec.
>>>"Public Interest Commitments"
>>>The proposed PIC Spec is a mechanism by which
>>>applicants may incorporate additional commitments into
>>>their Registry Agreements. As proposed, the
>>>PIC Spec has one mandatory provision and two optional
>>>provisions. It would require the Registry
>>>Operator to use only those registrars that sign onto the 2013
>>>Registrar Accreditation Agreement. It would
>>>also allow the Registry Operator to contractually agree to
>>>follow the commitments made in certain
>>>sections of its application for the gTLD (the specific sections to be
>>>selected by the Registry Operator). Finally,
>>>it would allow the Registry Operator to identify specific
>>>additional commitments - which could be even
>>>broader than those undertaken in the application - that it
>>>will follow in the operation of the registry.
>>>Each PIC Spec completed by an applicant would
>>>be posted for public review in advance of the Beijing
>>>meeting. Once finalized, the relevant PIC
>>>Spec would be attached to the relevant Registry Agreement. The
>>>Registry Agreement would not be signed until the PIC Spec is completed.
>>>The commitment to use only Registrars that
>>>have signed the new RAA will be enforceable through the
>>>regular contractual compliance process within
>>>ICANN. The additional commitments would primarily be
>>>enforceable by third parties through a revised
>>>Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Process.
>>>Once the Registry Agreement is in operation,
>>>third parties who suffer actual harm as a result of the Registry
>>>Operator's alleged noncompliance with the
>>>additional commitments or restrictions contained in the PIC
>>>Spec would have standing to proceed to dispute
>>>resolution. This dispute resolution procedure would be
>>>made part of the existing Registry Restriction
>>>Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PDDRP) and
>>>Trademark PDDRP http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb .
>>>First, there would be a mandatory conciliation
>>>phase during which the third party and the Registry Operator
>>>are expected to try to informally resolve the
>>>issue. If the issue cannot be resolved, the third party
>>>complainant will then proceed to a Public
>>>Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PIC-DRP)
>>>operated by a dispute resolution provider.
>>>If the provider issues findings and
>>>recommendations that the Registry Operator is violating the PIC Spec,
>>>the matter would then proceed to ICANN's
>>>Contractual Compliance for enforcement.
>>>As noted above, the PIC Spec and other
>>>proposed revisions to the Registry Agreement were posted for
>>>public comment on 5 February 2013. Applicants
>>>were also invited to optionally designate which parts of
>>>their application and which additional
>>>promises they will agree to have included in their registry agreement.
>>>Applicants' PICs are due on 5 March 2013, and
>>>will be publicly posted for public and GAC review.
>>>I hope that you find the above responsive to
>>>the GAC's request for a written briefing on enforcing applicant
>>>commitments and that it addresses the GAC's advice on this subject.
>>>Stephen D. Crocker,
>>>Chair, ICANN Board
More information about the ALAC