Evan, I know this is your opinion, but I do not fully share it.

There is no doubt that many of the PICs from the 2012 round had minimal value and some even clearly said they could be changed or deleted. On the average, the PICs were not one of ICANN's greatest moments.

But we should not ignore that not all PICs were "average"!

There were other cases where the PICs were substantive and crucial to the TLD's operation. We are all aware of .bank that was applied for and delegated as a community TLD that committed to doing rigourous verification that the applicant was indeed a legitimate bank. Other applicants chose to not apply as a community TLD, but rather put their commitments to do verification or work with appropriate agencies in their PICs. To the best of my knowledge these TLDs are operational and meeting their commitments.

I also not that PICs can be enforced via ICANN Contractual Compliance and enforcement is not limited to the PICDRP (which is applicable only in specific cases where parties are explicitly harmed). The ALAC fought hard to make sure that the DRP was not the only way to enforce PICs, so why are you ignoring that major win.

Lastly, you make reference to "the last time ALAC launched a PIC challenge". Perhaps I am having a mental lapse, but I am not aware of the ALAC ever even contemplating using the PICDRP, and I suspect if we had, I would have been involved (either as ALAC Chair, or before that, as the Liaison to the GNSO. If you believe otherwise, please provide the details.

Alan



At 21/02/2020 07:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
PICs offer registries a purely-cosmetic means to demonstrate care for the public interest, knowing that the bar of proof and evidence required to contest is so high as to be impenetrable. On the challengers' side you have a high bar of evidence that may require substantial legal instincts but falls to public-interest volunteers who lack the necessary time or resources. On the other side is fulltime registry legal staff whose paid task is to do whatever is necessary to defend. By design it's horribly imbalanced.

IIRC, the last time ALAC launched a PIC challenge it was dismissed before we ever got to argue substance because the PICDRP said that ALAC did not have sufficient standing to intervene(!). Such are the rules.

Yeah the theory behind PICs is wonderful but it would need a ground-up rewrite -- with something approaching a level playing field, and funding for challengers -- to be useful. The work necessary to "give teeth" to the PICs would need to be done before the Ethos offer could be even considered. Is there time for that?

- Evan


On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 15:33, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
I’d rather work on giving teeth to PICs than give up on PICs.

On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Well part of our interventions on SubPro is improvements to that process, no? It seems as though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism?



From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG



Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest.

Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos.



- Evan





On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:

Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas.  It’s not bad language in that respect.



_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

--
***********************************
Greg Shatan
President, ISOC-NY
“The Internet is for Everyone”
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.



--
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.