[At-Large] [Registrants-rights] That Revised PICDRP
h.raiche at internode.on.net
Thu Oct 3 23:06:40 UTC 2013
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.
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
>> 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
>> *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
>> *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 A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> Registrants-rights mailing list
>> Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> 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
> WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i
More information about the At-Large