[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Subsequent Procedures Questions - PICS

[Carlton Samuels]

Since I'm one who spent a lot of hours on this topic in the last round, I
feel compelled to say my 2 cents.

First, there is no successful contradiction to the fact that PICs came
about as a tactical response, a tack on.

Second, there is no successful contradiction to the fact that
notwithstanding the ICANN org noise that all PICS were contracted and
thusly enforceable, showed no enthusiasm for enforcement.

Three, the PICs themselves have a fundamental weakness as they tend to
envelop business plans removed from the actual DNS. Speaking as a corporate
strategist, it is a fickle thing to enforce and one I personally think
ICANN would be challenged to enforce.

Four, the anecdotal evidence is that a couple of outfits have implemented
PICs that smoothly integrate into their business plans; think a few of the
gTLDs that attracted GAC early warnings. I looked and could not find any
contemporary information either from the Compliance side or from the
outfits themselves that tell how things are working years on.

On the balance of facts and the weight of evidence, most who filed PICS
know its a 'feel-good-add-a-compliant-tick mark-get-out-of-jail-card' thing
and that alone.  In fact I believed my first use of the label 'not worth a
bucket of warm spit' was to record my estimate of their value to the global
public interest.

Maybe we need to encourage PICs. And maybe the gTLD operators will, like
those outfits cognizant of GAC early warnings, come up with some that
converge seamlessly into their business plans.  If there is a better
mousetrap to sell then I'm in. However, given the facts and history, I
would need to be persuaded this is worthy of another investment of
volunteer time.

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================


On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:45 AM 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180810/68756e30/attachment.html>