Dear WG Members, In support of an action item from a Sub Group A call: “Ask ICANN Org: Does Compliance audit PICs or only when there is a complaint? Are mandatory and voluntary PICs treated differently?” …staff reached out to our Contractual Compliance colleagues about PIC enforcement. You can see the questions we asked and the response given below. While this action item was derived from Sub Group A’s review of public comments, the information may be useful to the WG during its deliberations on the subject. Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information on this topic, especially from Contractual Compliance. Best, Steve Dear Compliance, In support of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP WG, we have a couple of questions about how Public Interest Commitments (PICs) are enforced. We assume that because both mandatory and voluntary PICs are in the Registry Agreement, they are therefore enforceable. Our understanding of the process is as follows: We are aware that there is PIC complaint form, which results in an investigation by ICANN (presumably Contractual Compliance?). If the complaint has merit, the Registry Operator gets an opportunity to resolve the issue. Depending on a number of factors, the standing panel can be invoked if the complaint is not successfully resolved to the complainant’s satisfaction. The panel has only been invoked twice. Assuming that high-level understanding is correct, can you please clarify if: PIC enforcement is only complaint-driven or if there is also some level of proactive enforcement by Contractual Compliance. If there is any difference in the enforcement of mandatory and voluntary PICs. Response: “Your understanding is correct at a high level, for cases where the PICDRP is used. PIC enforcement - for either mandatory or voluntary PICs - can be addressed through the standard ICANN Contractual Compliance Approach and Process (see https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/approach-processes-2012-02-25-en [icann.org] ) or the PICDRP, and may occur through processing of third party complaints and proactively through audits. Compliance also may initiate a proactive review of PICs based on concerns raised by the community or media (e.g., blogs). The WG can read about a proactive effort that was conducted in 2014 in the report at https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/annual-2014-13feb15-en.pdf [icann.org].” Steven Chan Policy Director, GNSO Support ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Mobile: +1.310.339.4410 Office Telephone: +1.310.301.5800 Office Fax: +1.310.823.8649 Find out more about the GNSO by taking our interactive courses [learn.icann.org] and visiting the GNSO Newcomer pages [gnso.icann.org]. Follow @GNSO on Twitter: https://twitter.com/ICANN_GNSO [twitter.com] Follow the GNSO on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/icanngnso/ [facebook.com] http://gnso.icann.org/en/ [gnso.icann.org]