[PC-NCSG] Fwd: [e] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP

[Avri Doria]

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
>