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

[Holly Raiche]

Thanks 

First, distinguish between the mandatory and voluntary.  the mandatory ones (yes, sprung on industry) actually do provide safeguards.  So I’m all for having a PDP and putting them in an ICANN-registry contract.  Right now, they are subject to that wonderful creation, the PICDRP.  As to voluntary - a few have been entered into and followed - so lets applaud them.

Holly
On 11 Aug 2018, at 12:53 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:

> 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/20180811/f393998a/attachment.html>