[ALAC] [At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP

Fri Oct 4 00:29:05 UTC 2013

Thanks Rinalia

I'm happy to do something now, but I think the time and place for a statement is when we are all at the table (or pub or whatever) and can pool ideas/frustrations into the final list of what is wrong.  And Yes, please, something public - Forum or whatever - on the issue.

And the timetable -  we should all develop a list (within the next couple of weeks) of the top issues for us - and then those are what will be in the ALAC policy discussion.

My picks for topics:
- new gTLDs
- IDNs - 
- The whole RAA/Whois set of issues.  That includes where we are up to with Compliance with existing RAA requirements, what are the outstanding issues and where are we up to with the EWG.

Others are welcome to list their top items, but let's concentrate on the main issues for us - and work towards having the Multi-stkaeholder forum as well

Holly

On 04/10/2013, at 9:56 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:

> Hear, hear, Holly.
> 
> I'd say there are at least 3 deliverables in that intervention:
> 
> 1. An ALAC statement on the overall sorry state of new gTLD program - let's
> draft one, I'm ready to work on it. Any other volunteers?
> 
> 2. A Public Forum intervention on the same.
> 
> 3. A discussion in Buenos Aires (if not at a MS roundtable, then at least
> at an ALAC policy discussion session). The fight over time slots seems
> intense - you wouldn't believe how many sessions the IDN WG session
> overlaps with (as an example of a struggle for time and people).  As I
> recalled, it clashes with capacity building, Atlas II and some other
> things, and that is just within the community, not even factoring external
> activities.
> 
> Rinalia
> On Oct 4, 2013 7:24 AM, "Holly Raiche" <h.raiche at internode.on.net> wrote:
> 
>> I guess it is my turn.
>> 
>> One of my real objections to the proposed and Sally led meeting Monday
>> afternoon is that we were planning a third multi stakeholder forum - this
>> time on the new gTLDs - to have a hard look at the many many issues that we
>> have raised and finally ask is there anything that can be done.  That
>> includes PICS, it includes the metrics, it includes the totally nonsensical
>> rulings on con/can and the singular plural issue, and the IP issues, and
>> the issues of applicant support.  In the end, it is a litany of quick fixes
>> that have not fixed.  So maybe time to say so, rather than object to each
>> issue individually.
>> 
>> That said, yes, the PICS were an add on, largely at the GAC request that,
>> if people say they are going to do something, then they should do it.  But
>> enforcing it after the fact has proved - not surprisingly - very
>> problematic.  Another issue with the gTLDs gone bad.
>> 
>> Maybe the multi stakeholder forum - if it is held - could be titled what
>> is right with the new gTLDs.  It would be a very short session.
>> 
>> Holly
>> 
>> 
>> On 04/10/2013, at 7:29 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>> 
>>> Now it is my turn to ++1 Carlton :-)
>>> 
>>> The process is stacked to the advantage of registries, to the
>> disadvantage
>>> of registrants who much pay for the system, and heavily against
>>> non-registrant end-users who see the promises coming undone.
>>> 
>>> Most unnerving is the explicit references to "repeat offenders", which
>> IMO
>>> is deliberately targeting potential watchdog groups that would object on
>>> public interest grounds.
>>> 
>>> The process for creating PICs was shaky enough. The process for enforcing
>>> them is a sham, designed for public relations value without actually
>>> providing significant public benefit. Like Applicantg Support and the
>>> public (ALAC/Ombudsman) Objection process, they are complex in design and
>>> will see next to no use.
>>> 
>>> The problems are embedded and cultural, no amount of tweaking will fix
>> this.
>>> 
>>> Does the ALAC have the courage to point out this program's utter failure
>> to
>>> the Board?
>>> 
>>> - Evan
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3 October 2013 12:14, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> So, the PICDRP is revised.  Yawn.
>>>> 
>>>> For sure, it is a poster child for what lawyers call - often times with
>>>> tongue firmly rooted in cheek - 'due process'. Regrettably and in
>> IMMHO, it
>>>> yet remains a creature that is all 'sound and fury, signifying nothing'.
>>>> Yes, in the end, it is still not worth a warm bucket of spit.
>>>> 
>>>> The fundamental problem remains; it is a high bar we raise to deny
>>>> companies the right to change a business model - or approach to
>>>> implementing a model - in process. That is a flightless buzzard of a
>> bird.
>>>> 
>>>> The notion of 'to report is to offend' remains. Now, I freely admit
>> that as
>>>> a free thinker, all orthodoxies remain suspect absent they are forced
>> thru
>>>> the crucible of reason.  But this position as a conceptual framework is
>> and
>>>> remains so injurious to perceptions of good governance it is practically
>>>> indecent!
>>>> 
>>>> I have excerpted and highlighted a part of the revised procedure below.
>> It
>>>> frames what follows better than I could; it is as if ICANN had engaged a
>>>> circular firing squad to execute PIC enforcement:
>>>> 
>>>> *"1.3 .....ICANN will conduct a preliminary review of the PIC report to
>>>> ensure that it is complete and states a claim of non-compliance with
>> one or
>>>> more PICs. ICANN also will make a determination as to*
>>>> *PICDRP- 2*
>>>> *whether the Reporter is in good standing and is not a Repeat Offender
>> as
>>>> set forth below in Section 5. *
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *ICANN’s preliminary review is not intended to evaluate the merits of
>> the
>>>> allegations, but whether the Reporter has completed all of the reporting
>>>> obligations.*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *In particular, ICANN will review whether the Reporter has: (i)
>> identified
>>>> the proper parties; (ii) identified at least one PIC with which the
>>>> Registry Operator failed to comply, (iii) alleged how the Reporter has
>> been
>>>> harmed; and (iv) set forth the grounds of the claim and submitted
>>>> appropriate documentation to support the report of non-compliance.*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *1.4** If the PIC report fails the preliminary review, ICANN will notify
>>>> the Reporter and the Registry Operator, and **the PIC report will be
>>>> closed.
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>> *2. Initial Review of the PIC Report and Conference*
>>>> *2.1 If the PIC report passes ICANN’s preliminary review, ICANN will
>>>> forward the report to the Registry Operator (through its Abuse Point of
>>>> Contact) and notify the Reporter that the PIC report has been forwarded
>> to
>>>> the Registry Operator.*"
>>>> 
>>>> -Carlton
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ==============================
>>>> Carlton A Samuels
>>>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>>>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>>>> =============================
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Registrants-rights mailing list
>>>> Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
>>>> 
>>>> WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> Evan Leibovitch
>>> Toronto Canada
>>> 
>>> Em: evan at telly dot org
>>> Sk: evanleibovitch
>>> Tw: el56
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Registrants-rights mailing list
>>> Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
>>> 
>>> WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>> 
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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)