ALAC

Download

alac@icann.org

April 2013

16 participants
22 discussions

Re: [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2013

April 2, 2013

Nope. I will make the change that you suggested. Alan At 01/04/2013 06:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >My comments are on the wiki page. do you need them repeated here? > > > >On 1 April 2013 17:41, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Thanks Carlton. But after due consideration. I don't think I will >include that in the formal statement. :-) > >Alan > >At 31/03/2013 06:16 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >Um, harsh you say? By gum.......I say again, it isn't worth a warm > >bucket of spit. > > > >-Carlton > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: <tel:876-818-1799>876-818-1799 > >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >============================= > > > > > >On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Greenberg > ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca><mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >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>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf. > > > >The statement can be found at > ><<https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>https://community.icann.org/ > x/pJlwAg>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-05feb > 13-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm>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. > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.ica > nn.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: > <<http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > ><<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Com > mittee+(ALAC)>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft ALAC Statement of PIC DRP
by Alan Greenberg April 1, 2013

April 1, 2013

Thanks Carlton. But after due consideration. I don't think I will include that in the formal statement. :-) Alan At 31/03/2013 06:16 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Um, harsh you say? By gum.......I say again, it isn't worth a warm >bucket of spit. > >-Carlton > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > > >On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >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>http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf. > >The statement can be found at ><https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg>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>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. > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

2 1