[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures Questions - PICS

[Alan Greenberg]

Evan, I disagree with you. I am in the car right now - not driving but my response will be longer than I want to type on my phone. So will reply later.

Alan
-- 
Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos.

On August 10, 2018 10:44:15 AM EDT, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
>Hi Olivier,
>
>
>> 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.
>
>
>You can't prove a negative. I ask for any -- ANY -- evidence that PICs
>from
>the last round served any major benefit to the public interest. To my
>awareness, there are none.
>
>I have come to think of PICs the way I think of airport security --
>theatre, which projects an air of public service but fails totally in
>execution.
>
>If they are currently not useful then let's get them
>> improved!
>
>
>ALAC did not invent the concept of PICs, they were imposed upon us as a
>protocol that IMO was deliberately flawed by design (and, as a result,
>beyond repair in its current form). I suggest that we aim higher, and
>focus
>on the objectives of asserting the public interest into the delegation
>of
>gTLDs. Since we clearly have no say on the implementation, our efforts
>are
>better spent concentrating on the goals and metrics
>
>Let's state clearly our vision for the protection of public interest in
>future gTLD delegation. That is ... were we to get what we are asking
>for,
>what would be the intended result?
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>I am not suggesting saying nothing. Rather, my purpose is that we stay
>at a
>high level and make very clear what we expect as the objectives of
>serving
>the public interest rather than dwelling on tactical recommendations
>that
>ICANN will once again surely ignore. We have finite (and stretched
>thin)
>human resources to tackle the issue, and I do not relish another round
>of
>hundreds of person-hours being wasted by a process that has already
>demonstrated the ability to impose "solutions" that do not match our
>needs.
>
>Let's focus on what needs to be done, acknowledging that we have zero
>influence on how ICANN would intend to do it. Since we already have a
>precedent that indicates how ICANN has reacted to At-Large advice in
>this
>realm before, we should know better
><https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/doomed-to-repeat-it> than to do
>the
>same thing multiple times and expect different results.
>
>Cheers,
>
>- Evan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180810/56544fdb/attachment.html>