<div dir="ltr"><div><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 0pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Dear all,</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">First of all,
is there is real definition of PIC universally agreed by all parties.<br>
Since most of PICs are established based on Voluntary commitment, how seriously
we should discuss and analyze them, taking into account the severe time
constrains?</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">It is good to
see some many valuable remarks on the pics but without narrowing down the path
to move toward a possible consensus.</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Almost all
arguments are valid based on the way that their author understands the meaning
and scope of application of PICs by the Board and the <span> </span>observance of the <span> </span>promised <span> </span>commitment .</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Where we are
going from here?</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Regards</span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font><p style="background:white;margin:0cm 0cm 6.75pt;line-height:normal;vertical-align:middle"><span lang="EN-US" style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";font-size:12pt">Kavouss </span></p><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">
</font></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">2016-01-16 20:59 GMT+01:00 Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net" target="_blank">ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span>> But Eric is probably wrong, even if this academic anyway.<br>
<br>
</span>Of course, but lets find out what the specific error is.<br>
<span><br>
> RFC 1591 is VERY clear on substantial misbehavior, probably only during the app<br>
> lication phase, but most certainly also during tue application phase (as interp<br>
> reted by the FoI Principles).<br>
<br>
</span>Jon submitted to Joyce the draft that was published as 1591 in the Winter of<br>
1993-1994.<br>
<br>
At the moment, in the ccwg-acct list, the subject under discussion appears to<br>
me to be the enforcement of agreements contained in, or arising from, those<br>
delegations made after 1998, which were not made because of existing, or new<br>
allocations of iso3166-1 code points by the iso3166/MA.<br>
<br>
I do not recall Staff (that would be Louis) reliance upon 1591 when selecting<br>
6-10 of the 41 new gTLD applications submitted to the Corporation in 2000,<br>
several of which I contributed to, and while tangential, when .us was transfered<br>
from the IANA to another operator, the NTIA did not take note of conditions<br>
existing during the IANA management period which were difficult to reconcile<br>
with the plain reading of 1591, which were continued after transition to another<br>
operator, and continue to the present.<br>
<br>
Similarly, I do not recall Staff (that would be several people, not just Louis)<br>
reliance upon 1591 when evaluating the 2004 sTLD applications, though of course<br>
the application for .cat was made with the plain reading of 1591 in mind. There<br>
was significant public comment on the next best 2004 application, which I'm<br>
confident Becky recalls -- I don't recall the issue of 1591 among the major<br>
critiques of the .xxx application.<br>
<br>
I'm confident that there are others contributing to the list who were involved<br>
in one or more applications in the 2010 round, and can offer their recollection<br>
of the import of 1591 language, section 2 in particular, in framing their<br>
application and any subsequent offers of conditions such as PIC statements. Of<br>
the linguistic and cultural and/or municipal and/or regional applications I<br>
contributed to or was informed of, as with the .cat application, these were<br>
made with the plain reading of 1591 in mind.<br>
<br>
I infer from your statement that my error lies in failing to discern the import<br>
of 1591 in the 2000 and/or 2004 and/or 2010 and/or subsequent, if any, processes<br>
which resulted in, or are likely to result in, delegations by the IANA function<br>
operator.<br>
<span><br>
> Never mind that i would be surprised that misrepresentations during the applica<br>
> tion could not be sanctioned after delegation (in the agreement) ICANN could us<br>
> e, in my view, RFC 1591 before execution of the agreement.<br>
<br>
</span>There is the history of .travel, and .pro, to name just two frequently mentioned<br>
over the past decade and a half, or more generally, the weakness of the<br>
compliance portion of the Corporation, whether directed at registrars, or at<br>
registries. However, as I understand it, the subject under discussion appears<br>
to me to be the enforcement of agreements contained in, or arising from, those<br>
delegations, with the past accomodated by "grandfathering" language, so the<br>
core issue is prospective enforcement, where the Applicant Guidebook is the<br>
primary source of authority, not 1591.<br>
<br>
Eric Brunner-Williams<br>
Eugene, Oregon<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org">Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>