[CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG

Alan Greenberg greenberg.alan at gmail.com
Mon Feb 24 03:44:28 UTC 2020 

Evan, I know this is your opinion, but I do not fully share it.

There is no doubt that many of the PICs from the 
2012 round had minimal value and some even 
clearly said they could be changed or deleted. On 
the average, the PICs were not one of ICANN's greatest moments.

But we should not ignore that not all PICs were "average"!

There were other cases where the PICs were 
substantive and crucial to the TLD's operation. 
We are all aware of .bank that was applied for 
and delegated as a community TLD that committed 
to doing rigourous verification that the 
applicant was indeed a legitimate bank. Other 
applicants chose to not apply as a community TLD, 
but rather put their commitments to do 
verification or work with appropriate agencies in 
their PICs. To the best of my knowledge these 
TLDs are operational and meeting their commitments.

I also not that PICs can be enforced via ICANN 
Contractual Compliance and enforcement is not 
limited to the PICDRP (which is applicable only 
in specific cases where parties are explicitly 
harmed). The ALAC fought hard to make sure that 
the DRP was not the only way to enforce PICs, so 
why are you ignoring that major win.

Lastly, you make reference to "the last time ALAC 
launched a PIC challenge". Perhaps I am having a 
mental lapse, but I am not aware of the ALAC ever 
even contemplating using the PICDRP, and I 
suspect if we had, I would have been involved 
(either as ALAC Chair, or before that, as the 
Liaison to the GNSO. If you believe otherwise, please provide the details.

Alan



At 21/02/2020 07:59 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
>PICs offer registries a purely-cosmetic means to 
>demonstrate care for the public interest, 
>knowing that the bar of proof and evidence 
>required to contest is so high as to be 
>impenetrable. On the challengers' side you have 
>a high bar of evidence that may require 
>substantial legal instincts but falls to 
>public-interest volunteers who lack the 
>necessary time or resources. On the other side 
>is fulltime registry legal staff whose paid task 
>is to do whatever is necessary to defend. By design it's horribly imbalanced.
>
>IIRC, the last time ALAC launched a PIC 
>challenge it was dismissed before we ever got to 
>argue substance because the PICDRP said that 
>ALAC did not have sufficient standing to intervene(!). Such are the rules.
>
>Yeah the theory behind PICs is wonderful but it 
>would need a ground-up rewrite -- with something 
>approaching a level playing field, and funding 
>for challengers -- to be useful. The work 
>necessary to "give teeth" to the PICs would need 
>to be done before the Ethos offer could be even 
>considered. Is there time for that?
>
>- Evan
>
>
>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 15:33, Greg Shatan 
><<mailto:greg at isoc-ny.org>greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:
>I’d rather work on giving teeth to PICs than give up on PICs.
>
>On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:43 PM Jonathan Zuck 
><<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote:
>
>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?
>
>Â
>
>From: Evan Leibovitch <<mailto:evan at telly.org>evan at telly.org>
>Date: Friday, February 21, 2020 at 10:32 AM
>To: Jonathan Zuck 
><<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>
>Cc: CPWG <<mailto:cpwg at icann.org>cpwg at icann.org>
>Subject: Re: [CPWG] PIC commitments on ORG
>
>Â
>
>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.
>
>Â
>
>- Evan
>
>Â
>
>Â
>
>On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 13:27, Jonathan Zuck 
><<mailto:JZuck at innovatorsnetwork.org>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.
>
>Â
>
>_______________________________________________
>CPWG mailing list
><mailto:CPWG at icann.org>CPWG at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 
>You can visit the Mailman link above to change 
>your membership status or configuration, 
>including unsubscribing, setting digest-style 
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>--
>***********************************
>Greg Shatan
>President, ISOC-NY
>“The Internet is for Everyone”
>_______________________________________________
>CPWG mailing list
><mailto:CPWG at icann.org>CPWG at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) 
>and the website Terms of Service 
>(<https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). 
>You can visit the Mailman link above to change 
>your membership status or configuration, 
>including unsubscribing, setting digest-style 
>delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
>
>
>--
>Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
>@evanleibovitch or @el56
>_______________________________________________
>CPWG mailing list
>CPWG at icann.org
>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>_______________________________________________
>By submitting your personal data, you consent to 
>the processing of your personal data for 
>purposes of subscribing to this mailing list 
>accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the 
>website Terms of Service 
>(https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can 
>visit the Mailman link above to change your 
>membership status or configuration, including 
>unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or 
>disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20200223/3c8c422e/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the CPWG mailing list