*Evan, Rinalia, Alan,* * * *clear, forceful, effective! Very good.* * * *Jean-Jacques.* 2013/4/11 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>
The original draft and discussion can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg. Thanks to Rinalia and Evan for a great revision (which I have slightly tweaked here).
ALAC Statement on Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure
The ALAC is deeply troubled/concerned by the proposed enforcement mechanism for the new gTLD Public Interest Commitments, which appears to be ineffectual by design.
Although described as a Dispute Resolution Procedure, the Public Interest Commitment (PIC) was introduced to the community as a process that 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 ).
Many in our community were led to believe that “enforced by ICANN” meant that the PIC process would include an ICANN Compliance connection and that ICANN itself would carry out the enforcement.
As the PIC is currently presented, the process: * Requires possibly significant fees with magnitudes that are currently unknown; * Requires that the complainant demonstrates measurable harm due to the violation; * May be filed by ICANN, but without any obligation for it to do so.
Given that no exception is noted in the PIC process, ICANN could presumably only file an objection if ICANN itself could demonstrate that it was measurably harmed. This situation recalls the sad period when ICANN applied RAA sanctions only when it was not paid.
The UDRP, where decisions are outsourced like those of the proposed PICDRP, was deliberately designed to operate independently – the opposite of "by ICANN" as claimed by ICANN for the PIC. And unlike trademark claimants using the UDRP, members of the public should not be expected to have financial – or even direct – interest in order to complain when PICs are not being fulfilled.
The ALAC believes that ICANN made a serious mistake in not requiring all new gTLD applicants to stand by their application promises in the form of contractual compliance. We expected that the PIC, despite being a late addition to the application process, would be used as a crucial mechanism to uphold the interest of the public and the end user. As proposed, the PIC implementation is weak with features that actively discourage and penalize complainants. The PIC Dispute Resolution Procedure as it is currently presented provides little leverage for the Global Public Interest and it is therefore unacceptable. We firmly believe that ICANN must bestow upon the PIC process the true force of responsible and competent enforcement. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)