[CPWG] Subsequent Procedures Questions - PICS

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Evan,

On 10/08/2018 04:34, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
> 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.

Whilst I agree with you that PICs should be meaningful & enforceable, I
do not know what hard data you are basing your comments on their lack of
usefulness. If they are currently not useful then let's get them
improved! But throwing the towel in when we're actually in a position to
make a difference is not constructive in my opinion. If we already go to
battle saying we're wasting our time, then we've already lost the battle.
Kindest regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180810/02151128/attachment.html>