[CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG

[Jonathan Zuck]

Agree Evan. Take a look at the document as it says explicitly the “or else” can include taking .ORG away from PIR and that the stewardship council has veto power over policies in those areas.  It’s not bad language in that respect.

From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 9:34 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG

Regardless of intent, PICs are only cosmetic unless accompanied by specifics about enforcement and penalty for abrogation.

Without knowing how breeches of Ethos' PICs can be reported, judged and acted upon, debate on their substance is moot.
Experiences from those of us involved in developing the PIC process during the last round -- and then seeing the aftermath -- found that without an "or else" component baked-in, PICs are utterly useless.

- Evan



On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 12:13, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
Folks,
Take a look at the PIC commitments proposed by PIR/Ethos for ORG.  At present, they focus on pricing, free speech and privacy.
https://www.keypointsabout.org/accountability

While a step in the right direction, including some binding powers in the above regards by the stewardship council, our concerns extend to the consumer trust implications of dramatically broadening the registrant profile of .ORG.  We want it to remain predominantly a space for non-profit organizations and individuals and limit the potential for DSN abuse through practices such as bulk registrations.

In any case, give it a read and we will discuss on Wednesday.
Jonathan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200221/986e73ca/attachment-0001.html>