[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [e] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
Avri Doria
avri
Sun Mar 31 06:36:24 EEST 2013
fyi
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>
> Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
> Date: 30 March 2013 19:23:20 EDT
> To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
>
>
>> 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
>> http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> ========================
>> 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"
>> (http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm).
>>
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
More information about the NCSG-PC
mailing list