Hi Holly, Unlike the first time we went over this issue at length, we now have some hindsight to guide us. A few points to consider before we commit substantial volunteer time to a repeat of what we did for the last round. Consider what might be some lessons learned, IMO: The "PI" intended to connote a "public interest" component of "PIC" turned out to be misleading. The PICs that were mandatory were those designed to appease trademark and copyright interests, measures against so-called piracy and similar obsessions of the intellectual property constituency. PICs primarily intended to serve the global public interest (such as keeping category-name TLDs true to their category) were weakly designed, optional, and effectively unenforceable. It can be objectively measured: exactly how many registries were cited for violating PICs, especially the "optional" ones? What action was taken as a result? What process existed for the public to be aware of PICs and then be able to report violations? To my recollection the effectiveness of PICs from the last round was somewhere between negligible and nonexistent. Based on the miserable history of actual "public interest" PICs -- their creation, maintenance and enforcement -- I personally would challenge the need to spend effort designing new-round PICs that will also be weak, optional and unenforced. So either we need to demand that the PIC concept itself be made useful, or we ought not waste our time validating what is effectively a charade. Cheers, - Evan On Thu, 9 Aug 2018 at 21:17, Holly Raiche <h.raiche@internode.on.net> wrote:
Folks
I’m not sure where or how to do this, but I am putting my hand up for the PICS issue. I”ll try to have something on the policy page workspace in the next couple of days.
Looking at the recommendations, generally, our issues:
*Mandaory* Should there still be mandatory PICS (and in response to the earlier section, all provisions on PICS should be in place BEFORE more applications (in rounds or otherwise) start. One of the issues was that PICS weren’t in the original Applilcant Guidebook so there was justifiable criticism of inserting them afterwards
What should they be/do we want to add to what is already there - and one of the questions - should the requirements be codified through a PDP to be mandatory
We raised the issue of enforceability - under Specification 11, they do form part of the agreement. But we raised the issue of who enforces - clearly ICANN compliance
*Voluntary* The Guidebook was also amended to allow for additional commitments to be made. Some of the questions being asked are whether they can be limited in scope or duration, whether it would be reflected in the Registry Agreement, ec
The GAC also said that some PICS raise the issue of ‘early warning’ - and to what extend should they be treated differently - or indeed, what should we say (again)
All initial comments welcome.
Holly
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch or @el56