[ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP

[Carlton Samuels]

Um, harsh you say?  By gum.......I say again, it isn't worth a warm bucket
of spit.

-Carlton

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


On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> Holly had volunteered to look at the Public Interest Commitment (PIC)
> Dispute Resolution Procedure (DRP) and see if an ALAC statement was
> required.
>
> Due to time constraints, she could not do this, and Olivier asked my
> to follow up on it.
>
> I did so, and found that the DRP was, in my mind, not satisfactory.
> The DRP can be found at
> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf.
>
> The statement can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg
> and is also reproduced below. It is short, but somewhat harsher than
> those I would normally draft.
>
> Alan
>
> ========================
> ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure
>
> The ALAC is disappointed in the proposed mechanism for enforcement of
> the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments.
>
> Although described a dispute resolution procedure, the process was
> introduce whereby a Public Interest Commitment (PIC) could be
> "enforced by ICANN"
> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm
> ).
>
> When announced, many in the community presumed that "enforced"
> included an ICANN Compliance connection, and that "by ICANN" in fact
> meant, "by ICANN".
>
> As it stands, the process:
>
> - Requires possibly significant fees, the magnitude of which are currently;
>
> - Requires that the complainant can show measurable harm due to the
> violation;
>
> - May be filed by ICANN, but there is no obligation to do so.
>
> Since no exception is noted, presumably ICANN could only file an
> objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurable
> harmed. This sounds like a return to the days when the only sanctions
> ICANN applied under the RAA were those where ICANN was not being paid.
>
> Using this same standard of language, one could say that "trade-marks
> are enforced by ICANN" because it has provided the UDRP.
>
> There was much hope in the community that the PIC would go at least
> part way to recovering from the mistake of not requiring all new gTLD
> applicants to stand by their application promises once the new TLD is
> delegated. This hope has not been satisfied.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>