Has anyone done cost analysis of the externalities of PICs, particularly implemented this way? Namely, if a private applicant can impose costs on ICANN by creating unique obligations that ICANN can then be forced to police, are we as a whole willing to subsidize that? Should we instead have an opportunity to ask if these so-called "public interest commitments" are really in the entire public interest, or rather ask the registry to pay for them itself? Otherwise, like it or not, we're building a larger and larger regulatory organization that we'll all have to pay for. --Wendy On 04/06/2013 07:49 PM, john@crediblecontext.com wrote:
In case you missed this, here is news report coming out of the GAC meeting.
It focuses on making PICs a part of contract language, making ICANN actively responsible for their compliance and a commitment from ICANN to not sign a new gTLD contract until GAC advice has been given. Note this: "ICANN COO Akram Attalah ensured: 'We will wait for GAC advice and ICANN Board reasoning and will not sign any contract before and put us in a position to have a contract change later.'” Here is the link: http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/06/at-icann-more-contractual-obligations-for... Cheers, Berard