[ALAC] Compliance PIC enforcement

[Carlton Samuels]

Alan, great detective work as usual. Listen, there are PICs and any fool
can get up and charge a violation. But then there is that pesky process to
remedy, the PICDRP.

I am willing to give even money - maximum sum of 1 United States dollar! -
that the answer will still be the same.

This aside, I have to give Maguy a free pass here. It's like this. The
declarations have been made over and again that we couldn't possibly be so
obtuse to take and understand the meaning of that phrase for what it
says...or, you'd think its saying!

Reminds me of experiences with some regional telecoms regulatory frameworks
times past. They must pull the drawbridge here.


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


On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 10:51 PM, Alan Greenberg
<alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>wrote:

> At the meeting between Compliance and ALAC on Sunday, Maguy reported that
> there is a form on the ICANN web site for reporting alleged PIC violations.
>
> At the public compliance session today, it became clear that this form was
> related to the PICDRP (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/
> applicants/agb/picdrp-19dec13-en.pdf).
>
> The PICDRP is ostensibly applicable only if the complainant can claim it
> has been harmed by the alleged non-compliance.
>
> To quote: "1.1 Any person or entity that believes they have been harmed as
> a result of a Registry Operator's act or omission in connection with the
> operation of its gTLD that is non-compliant with its PICs may report such
> alleged non-compliance by the Registry Operator ("Reporter")."
>
> During the session question period, I explicitly asked whether the process
> was applicable if the complainant does not claim any harm to the
> complainant.
>
> The answer was less than crystal clear. We were told that Compliance would
> evaluate the complaint and decide whether it had merit (including following
> up with the complainant if the submitted information was insufficient). On
> specific questioning of whether they would consider it a valid complaint if
> no harm was demonstrated, there was not a definitive answer. Related to
> this is my understanding that even if a complaint *was* forwarded to the
> Standing Panel, the rules under which it will operate would not allow it to
> find for the complainant with harm being demonstrated.
>
> I would suggest that the ALAC file an explicit written question with
> compliance on this issue, since it is effectively the SAME question that we
> have been asking for over a year now.
>
> I would be happy to draft such a letter.
>
> Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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)
>