All, Thank-you for a very constructive set of sessions and particularly for your contributions to the more open first and last sessions of the day. Very rewarding. I have taken Mason's notes and put them into a structure I can use within the session tomorrow. We have an opportunity to talk through and refine this tomorrow ahead of meeting with the board. I have also sent a note to Steve Crocker letting him know where we propose to go with the session. See you all then. Jonathan
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
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
participants (3)
-
john＠crediblecontext.com -
Jonathan Robinson -
Wendy Seltzer