[At-Large] Fwd: Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP

Alan Greenberg alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
Sat Mar 30 23:23:20 UTC 2013

>To: ALAC Working List <alac at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
>Subject: Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
>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 
>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.
>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" 
>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.

More information about the At-Large mailing list