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

Derek Smythe derek at aa419.org
Fri Oct 4 00:26:20 UTC 2013

Make that +2.

Further the "Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure"
makes no provision for genuine "public interest" groups to invoke it.

> 1. Notification Requirement and Preliminary Review
>  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 inconsistent with its PICs
> may report such alleged non-compliance by the Registry Operator (“Reporter”). 


> 1.3: ... (iii) alleged how the Reporter has been harmed;

The harm must be personal and must have happened already.

Interestingly these two issues were pointed out in the earlier comment

I guess this proposal is at odds with it's very title.


On 2013-10-03 11:29 PM, 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
>> indecent!
>> 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
>> obligations.*
>> *
>> *
>> *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
>> closed.
>> *
>> *
>> *
>> *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
>> ==============================
>> Carlton A Samuels
>> Mobile: 876-818-1799
>> *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
>> =============================
>> _______________________________________________
>> Registrants-rights mailing list
>> Registrants-rights at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registrants-rights
>> WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/x/vo4i

More information about the At-Large mailing list