[CCWG-ACCT] Deck for Meeting #75 Mission Statement discussion

Kavouss Arasteh kavouss.arasteh at gmail.com
Sun Jan 17 14:59:08 UTC 2016

Dear all,

First of all, is there is real definition of PIC universally agreed by all
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?

It is good to see some many valuable remarks on the pics but without
narrowing down the path to move toward a possible consensus.

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  observance of the  promised  commitment .

Where we are going from here?



2016-01-16 20:59 GMT+01:00 Eric (Maule) Brunner-Williams <
ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>:

> > But Eric is probably wrong, even if this academic anyway.
> Of course, but lets find out what the specific error is.
> > RFC 1591 is VERY clear on substantial misbehavior, probably only during
> the app
> > lication phase, but most certainly also during tue application phase (as
> interp
> > reted by the FoI Principles).
> Jon submitted to Joyce the draft that was published as 1591 in the Winter
> of
> 1993-1994.
> At the moment, in the ccwg-acct list, the subject under discussion appears
> to
> me to be the enforcement of agreements contained in, or arising from, those
> delegations made after 1998, which were not made because of existing, or
> new
> allocations of iso3166-1 code points by the iso3166/MA.
> I do not recall Staff (that would be Louis) reliance upon 1591 when
> selecting
> 6-10 of the 41 new gTLD applications submitted to the Corporation in 2000,
> several of which I contributed to, and while tangential, when .us was
> transfered
> from the IANA to another operator, the NTIA did not take note of conditions
> existing during the IANA management period which were difficult to
> reconcile
> with the plain reading of 1591, which were continued after transition to
> another
> operator, and continue to the present.
> Similarly, I do not recall Staff (that would be several people, not just
> Louis)
> reliance upon 1591 when evaluating the 2004 sTLD applications, though of
> course
> the application for .cat was made with the plain reading of 1591 in mind.
> There
> was significant public comment on the next best 2004 application, which I'm
> confident Becky recalls -- I don't recall the issue of 1591 among the major
> critiques of the .xxx application.
> I'm confident that there are others contributing to the list who were
> involved
> in one or more applications in the 2010 round, and can offer their
> recollection
> of the import of 1591 language, section 2 in particular, in framing their
> application and any subsequent offers of conditions such as PIC
> statements. Of
> the linguistic and cultural and/or municipal and/or regional applications I
> contributed to or was informed of, as with the .cat application, these were
> made with the plain reading of 1591 in mind.
> I infer from your statement that my error lies in failing to discern the
> import
> of 1591 in the 2000 and/or 2004 and/or 2010 and/or subsequent, if any,
> processes
> which resulted in, or are likely to result in, delegations by the IANA
> function
> operator.
> > Never mind that i would be surprised that misrepresentations during the
> applica
> > tion could not be sanctioned after delegation (in the agreement) ICANN
> could us
> > e, in my view, RFC 1591 before execution of the agreement.
> There is the history of .travel, and .pro, to name just two frequently
> mentioned
> over the past decade and a half, or more generally, the weakness of the
> compliance portion of the Corporation, whether directed at registrars, or
> at
> registries. However, as I understand it, the subject under discussion
> appears
> to me to be the enforcement of agreements contained in, or arising from,
> those
> delegations, with the past accomodated by "grandfathering" language, so the
> core issue is prospective enforcement, where the Applicant Guidebook is the
> primary source of authority, not 1591.
> Eric Brunner-Williams
> Eugene, Oregon
> _______________________________________________
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
> Accountability-Cross-Community at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/accountability-cross-community/attachments/20160117/6a83bd28/attachment.html>

More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list