[CPWG] Subsequent Procedures Questions - PICS

[Evan Leibovitch]

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 at 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 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>


-- 
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
@evanleibovitch or @el56
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180809/ad291615/attachment.html>