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