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

[Holly Raiche]

Thanks both to Evan and Carlton

On mandatory PICs, they have been added to to require registrars not only to have heir terms and conditions prohibit the use of the name for phishing, malware, etc - but to actually test to be sure the name isn’t being misused  As a PIC, that is enforceable under the PICDRP.  I think we should accept the recommendation that those consumer protections be incorporated into contract terms.  But voluntary ones - they should have worked, and a few actually do what we hoped.  So I”m with Carlton.  Let’s first recognise that that the idea has fallen WAY short of what was hoped.  But then why not say it was a good idea - but not die in a ditch over it

Holly


On 11 Aug 2018, at 1:48 am, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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: 876-818-1799
> Strategy, 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 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180811/fd38bb9b/attachment-0001.html>