[ALAC] OOPS!: Fwd: Letter from ICANN Board to GAC on Enforcing new gTLD applicant commitments

Alan Greenberg 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:
>>>Dear Heather,
>>>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.
>>>(http://www.icann.org/en/news/publiccomment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm )
>>>"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.
>>>Best regards,
>>>Stephen D. Crocker,
>>>Chair, ICANN Board

More information about the ALAC mailing list