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

Sat Oct 5 16:06:07 UTC 2013

My point was not whether to trust compliance. We are not yet at the 
stage where they have any responsibility with regard to complaints about PICs.

At 05/10/2013 01:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>Yes, let's trust the compliance department to do something that is 
>supportive of third parties and whistleblowers on PICs, just as well 
>as it has supported whistleblowers and third-party complaints on 
>WHOIS and related issues.
>
>Pfffft.
>
>To this day I don't know whether the systemic user-hostility of the 
>compliance department is due to lack of will, lack of competence, 
>lack of resources, or conspiratorial lack of mandate. The result is 
>the same. This too is an issue about which we have frequently 
>shouted into a black hole.
>
>- Evan
>
>
>
>On 5 October 2013 00:53, Alan Greenberg 
><<mailto:alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>I have largely been absent from the debates of this last week or so, 
>because I have been focusing either on ATRT work or in the moments 
>when that was lighter, trying to catch up with other parts of my 
>life that have been brushed aside recently. I have not had a chance 
>to review the latest PICDRP document. But honestly, I don't think it 
>will matter. The DRP is a dandy way for third parties who have been 
>injured by PIC commitments not being followed. I am sure they have 
>tweaked it a bit, and perhaps for the better.
>
>But it is not the mechanism that I really care about. We have been 
>assured twice now, by Fadi during ALAC-Board meetings that there 
>will be a parallel process for ICANN to take action. He has 
>reasonably said that ICANN does not have the resources to police the 
>PICs and detect every failure. With that, I have no real problem. 
>But he has also said that if and when ICANN is alerted to problems, 
>they will take action. The term he used at the last meeting is that 
>the detection would be "crowd-sourced". Compliance has said that if 
>given the mandate, they would take action, but so far (when it was 
>said, I think in Beijing or perhaps at one of the ATRT meeting in in 
>LA), they have only been given the responsibility of enforcing DRP rulings.
>
>Perhaps I have missed something, but I do not recall any public 
>announcement of anything like what Fadi has described. If I am 
>correct, then I strongly believe that THIS is what we need to make a 
>strong statement about, but the details or even the concept of the PICDRP.
>
>For the record, we said this six months ago - 
><https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg.
>
>Alan
>
>
>At 05/10/2013 12:21 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>On 3 October 2013 19:56, Rinalia Abdul Rahim
><<mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>
> > 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).
>
>
>
>I guess my main response to this is one of weariness.
>
>So we make a statement on the sorry state of the expansion program. Heaven
>knows there is a MASSIVE list of errors, unintended consequences,
>implementations that don't follow the spirit of policy. Worst of all is
>continuation of a compliance atmosphere that treats complaints from the
>public as hostile confrontations to be rebuffed and minimized -- not by
>making the system better for end-users, but by making it harder to
>complain. The PICDRP is just the latest.
>
>But what, right now, would a statement say? What would it ask for?
>
>If it's just a matter of going on the record with our issues ... so what?
>Nobody's listening. The gTLD locomotive is running at top speed, generally
>pilotless, the brakes have been sabotaged, and the industry is just hoping
>it gets as far as the bank before it derails.
>
>Dare we ask for a delay to deal with all these ugly public-interest issues?
>And have the rest of the ICANN community despise us ... while it ignores us?
>
>A statement, a Forum speech and a round table are tactics; what is the
>objective? Let everyone know we're unhappy? Again?
>
>They know. They don't care, at least not enough to act on what we
>recommend. Even Applicant Support would not have happened without GAC
>intervention, and even then the resulting program turned out to be wholly
>inaccessible.
>
>Anyone remember this?
>
>*We believe that "public benefit" declarations within TLD applications will
>
>be of dubious benefit, and in any case subject to substantial modification
>(and difficulty of enforcement) post-delegation.*
>
>
>
>That was part of a early 2011 submission from the ALAC that responded to
>both the GAC Scorecard on the gTLD program and the Board response to the
>Scorecard<<https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+gTLD+Scorecard>https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+GAC+New+gTLD+Scorecard>.
>
>Little that we asked for came about; the trademark over-jealousness
>requested by the GAC to which we objected has snuck in anyway, yet our
>support of the GAC for more categories, and most of our other concerns
>(such as dot-brands not having been sufficiently thought out) went largely
>unheeded.
>
>That was more than two years ago, when there was still an opportunity to
>nudge things if not steer them differently. Now opportunity for real change
>is smaller yet.
>
>The lack of substantive change in the PICDRP reveals that the corporate
>mindset and cultural end-user hostility of ICANN hasn't really budged, the
>rules are still all stacked in favour of the domain industry and against
>public interest complaints. The problems are fundamental in the resolution
>process and beyond minor refinements; but once the gTLD staff has gone in a
>process -- no matter how loopy -- it rarely backtracks. Not for us, at
>least. Problems we saw in the early years are manifesting now in nasty
>ways. And while we sometimes get heard in some of the smaller details on
>putting out these fires, the big cultural problems of ICANN -- of industry
>entitlement and end-user hostility -- refuse to wane.
>
>So what, exactly, do we want to tell the Board as Advice, or the rest of
>the community in a workshop or Forum comment? What outcome do we want?
>
>I'll help write something, but I've lost the interest in penning One More
>Expression of Mildly Cloaked Disgust.
>
>- Evan
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
><mailto:ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
>
>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
>ALAC Working Wiki: 
><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Evan Leibovitch
>Toronto Canada
>Em: evan at telly dot org
>Sk: evanleibovitch
>Tw: el56