[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Resolving Objection Proceedings with Mandatory PICs

[Greg Shatan]

I’m familiar with the entities known as the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group
and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and I’m reasonably confident Kathy
can speak to their views, particularly since EFF is a member of the NCSG
(but perhaps not of this WG, or if so, not particularly active).

I’m not familiar with any entity known as the Public Interest Community.
Indeed I’m pretty sure there is no such monolithic entity. I’m not even
quite sure what the phrase refers, but to the extent I understand it, it is
a diverse group of entities that does not speak with one voice or a single
perspective.

I doubt we can ascribe a single position to the “public interest
community.”  To the extent we try, it makes no sense to lump it in with
NCSG and EFF (and I look skeptically on any attempt to do so). Indeed, I
would expect At Large to have a firmer grasp on this group of entities than
NCSG — particularly since I believe the public interest community (as I try
to understand it) looks primarily to the interests of individual internet
users, as does At Large.

Greg

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 6:41 PM Kathy Kleiman <kathy at kathykleiman.com>
wrote:

> All,
>
> Mandatory PICS are unchanging. You can't resolve an Objection with a
> Mandatory PIC. It would require a Voluntary PIC -- which has become a
> misnomer, and a complete garbage can of everything applicants wanted to
> throw into the kitchen sink. There are longstanding objections to
> "voluntary PICs" from the Noncommercial Stakeholder Group, Electronic
> Frontier Foundation and the Public Interest Community (as we discussed many
> times). There is no high-level agreement on including them -- and they were
> not part of the Round 1 rules.
>
> We agreed in last week's call that you could *amend the application* to
> settle an Objection.  That puts the private Objection settlement out for
> fuller and fairer review -- which is fair.  Changes to public portion of
> applications would be subject to public comment -- and hopefully
> notification to all who have filed comments and therefore are likely
> interested in following changes to that application.  Publication and
> public notice on significant changes to applications (with public comment)
> to settle an Objection *was *done in Round 1.
>
> But there was no question that there is a *high level Disagreement **to
> settling disputes with changes to PICs --  because mandatory PICs are fixed
> and unchanging.   *This high level Disagreement was raised in every
> Objections call until last night. *Surely we are not saying that if you
> miss one discussion in the dead of night, you have waived all previous
> objections?  *
>
> I'm assuming GAC objections were the topic at issue here -- and can
> settled with changes to the application itself.  Many, many changes to
> public portions of applications were made in response to the GAC in Round
> 1.
>
> Best,  Kathy
>
> Kathryn Kleiman, American University Washington College of Law
>
>
> On 9/26/2019 6:13 PM, Aikman-Scalese, Anne wrote:
>
> Regarding the last call and the possible high level agreement on resolving
> Objection proceedings with mandatory PICs, it’s important to note that
> there is no private right of action to enforce a PIC.  The current PIC
> Dispute Resolution procedure – PICDRP (see attached) provides for various
> steps to be taken in resolving the PIC complaint and if unresolved, ICANN
>  at its SOLE discrestion, can invoke a a Staning Panel or undertake a
> compliance investigation.
>
>
>
> So the points I am raising here are:
>
>
>
> (1) Proceeding on the report of a PIC violation rests in the sole
> discretion of ICANN
>
> (2) The expense of the Compliance investigation and/or Standing Panel is
> an expense of ICANN.
>
>
>
> Accordingly, it may be appropriate to consider adopting a private right of
> action (rather than forcing the expense on ICANN) in connection with the
> enforcement of mandatory PICs adopted for purposes of resolving an
> Objection proceeding.
>
>
>
> In fact, the PICDRP originally contained a provision allowing the
> enforcement issue to be taken to a third party provider.  However, that
> draft did not survive.
>
>
>
> Anne
>
>
>
>
>
> *Anne E. Aikman-Scalese*
>
> Of Counsel
>
> 520.629.4428 office
>
> 520.879.4725 fax
>
> AAikman at lrrc.com
>
> _____________________________
>
> Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
>
> One South Church Avenue, Suite 2000
>
> Tucson, Arizona 85701-1611
>
> lrrc.com
>
> Because what matters
>
> to you, matters to us.™
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing listGnso-newgtld-wg at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> 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/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190930/c73efb6e/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image006.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6522 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190930/c73efb6e/image006-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 70 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190930/c73efb6e/image001-0001.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image007.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 2461 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20190930/c73efb6e/image007-0001.jpg>