[CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG

[Jonathan Zuck]

Well part of our interventions on SubPro is improvements to that process, no? It seems as though At-Large are still in favor of PICs if they are enforceable. Is there a better mechanism?

From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM
To: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG

Yecch. PICDRPs. I can't think of one instance in which they've sided with interveners in previous cases, and they're not exactly chosen because of sensitivity to the public interest.
Depending on that process is essentially a free pass for Ethos.

- Evan


On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote:
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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200221/dfe12603/attachment.html>