New draft on Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure
Dear ALAC Colleagues, See attached as FYI - Latest draft on new gTLD Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) sent by ICANN staff to Registries recently and will be up for discussion during the Registry call on Thursday. *What is interesting:* 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed). 2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN tends to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration. Interesting reading. The ALAC (and possibly the GAC) may want to make a case (jointly or separately) for third party reporting when comments are called for. At the moment, this is a draft for consideration based on discussions in Durban by the relevant parties, but it would be good to keep an eye on its progress. Best regards, Rinalia ** **
Dear Rinalia, General comments: - We need to find out if any part of the envisaged mechanism overlaps with any of the attributions of the ICANN Ombudsman; if so, the draft should reflect that, and clarify the boundaries between the two. - This is typically a subject on which positions of several entities within ICANN could cooperate; you mentioned GAC, and we may want to check with NCSG. Perhaps this is an opportunity for ALAC to take the lead in federating efforts? Draft: - A.3, I would prefer "... restore compliance..." rather than "...correct any..." - A.4, I suggest "... and shall respond to ICANN's request by providing documentation relating to any such reports, consistent with the PICDRP". - B.4.1, I suggest "A panel of three members (Standing Panel) shall be..." Thank you for following this closely! Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" <rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> À: "ALAC Working List" <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Mercredi 28 Août 2013 09:40:04 Objet: [ALAC] New draft on Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure Dear ALAC Colleagues, See attached as FYI - Latest draft on new gTLD Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) sent by ICANN staff to Registries recently and will be up for discussion during the Registry call on Thursday. *What is interesting:* 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed). 2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN tends to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration. Interesting reading. The ALAC (and possibly the GAC) may want to make a case (jointly or separately) for third party reporting when comments are called for. At the moment, this is a draft for consideration based on discussions in Durban by the relevant parties, but it would be good to keep an eye on its progress. Best regards, Rinalia ** ** _______________________________________________ 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...)
Dear Rinalia, thank you for flagging this and monitoring it. It is clear that if the draft remains as is to become policy, it is unacceptable. I have actually touched on this in my meeting with Compliance in the Los Angeles ICANN offices in August. On 28/08/2013 03:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
*What is interesting:* 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed).
I told Compliance this was unacceptable.
2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN tends to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. At this stage, nobody could give me an answer on this. 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. I told Compliance this was unacceptable. 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration. I told Compliance that they had no legal basis to be able to do this. It is outside their mandate to "ban" someone from a system since the only parties they can "ban" are parties they have a contract with. If they do restrict use of the tools with Acceptable Use Policies they will need to demonstrate that these tools do no restrict the ICANN Public Interest mission.
The ALAC filed a Statement about this in April 2013: https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg Clearly, the current draft does not appear to have taken the ICANN Statement in account. Oje cannot fault the ICANN Staff summary of comments which was, it appears, well executed: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/msg00010.html So how did things remain as they were circulated by ICANN Staff to Registries? Kind regards, Olivier
The logical guess would be because the text is being negotiated by the parties, Olivier. Alan may know more. Rinalia On Aug 28, 2013 3:47 PM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Rinalia,
thank you for flagging this and monitoring it. It is clear that if the draft remains as is to become policy, it is unacceptable. I have actually touched on this in my meeting with Compliance in the Los Angeles ICANN offices in August.
On 28/08/2013 03:40, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote:
*What is interesting:* 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed).
I told Compliance this was unacceptable.
2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN tends to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. At this stage, nobody could give me an answer on this. 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. I told Compliance this was unacceptable. 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration. I told Compliance that they had no legal basis to be able to do this. It is outside their mandate to "ban" someone from a system since the only parties they can "ban" are parties they have a contract with. If they do restrict use of the tools with Acceptable Use Policies they will need to demonstrate that these tools do no restrict the ICANN Public Interest mission.
The ALAC filed a Statement about this in April 2013: https://community.icann.org/x/pJlwAg Clearly, the current draft does not appear to have taken the ICANN Statement in account. Oje cannot fault the ICANN Staff summary of comments which was, it appears, well executed: http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/msg00010.html
So how did things remain as they were circulated by ICANN Staff to Registries?
Kind regards,
Olivier
Well knock me down and steal mah teeth! Is there now any doubt that there is no intent to make this PICDRP anything but a PR hack job? This 'repeat offender' designation - of the person who complains no less! - gave me a flashback to the old Soviet system and this criminal offence they had called 'malicious hooliganism'. If the dumb cluck were to complain about any aspect of the glorious system, the fellas would slap 'em with this charge......and the poor slob is best advised to start dressing for a vacation in Siberia. What if there were repeated breaches of these solemn PICs? And where is the statement for their punishment I ask you? I say again. It ain't worth a warm bucket of spit. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:40 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear ALAC Colleagues,
See attached as FYI - Latest draft on new gTLD Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) sent by ICANN staff to Registries recently and will be up for discussion during the Registry call on Thursday.
*What is interesting:* 1. Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that files/reports has to demonstrate that it has been harmed). 2. No mention of fees for filing violation. Also, unclear who will bear the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement. ICANN tends to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties. 3. Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a "conference" or consultation. If filings are incomplete or the reporter doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped. 4. Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record, which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration.
Interesting reading. The ALAC (and possibly the GAC) may want to make a case (jointly or separately) for third party reporting when comments are called for. At the moment, this is a draft for consideration based on discussions in Durban by the relevant parties, but it would be good to keep an eye on its progress.
Best regards,
Rinalia
** **
_______________________________________________ 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...)
participants (4)
-
Carlton Samuels -
Jean-Jacques Subrenat -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Rinalia Abdul Rahim