I don't agree, I object to the whole idea of PICs. It's an epitome of the kind of overreaching and arbitrariness that ICANN has come to embody. ICANN policy process says something is allowed, people who participated in that process, because they have more clout with ICANN or the U.S. Congress/NTIA change the policy retroactively. Bad. 

--MM

> -----Original Message-----
> 
> But a number of applicants are also using their PICs to resolve key questions
> of their applications -- and make key resolutions and agreements binding as
> part of their registry contracts. As you will remember, a number of
> companies applied for generic terms as "Closed Generics" -- e.g., .BOOK
> wanted all second level domain names to Amazon, .SEARCH all for Google,
> etc.
> 
> I know there were differences of opinion in this WG, but for those who
> fervently believed that Generic Words belong their communities and that
> you can't lock them up (and the global book industry and search industries
> jumped in, talked about the value of generic terms, and sounded just like
> traditional NCUC members), the Applicants backed down. They agreed to
> open up the Closed Generics. ** That is the type of commitment that is
> being embodied in the PIC -- and for many of us, that makes sense. **
> 
> In fact, the PIC is the only way to make such a commitment/change binding
> since the rest of the Registry Agreement between the Applicant and ICANN is
> a "stock contract" -- called the "base Registry agreement" which is published
> in the Applicant Guidebook and signed by everyone (one size fits all). These
> are no longer individually-negotiated agreements.
> 
> So I would like to see up being circumspect in how we discuss PICs as many
> may be helping some of the broader goals we have worked on for some
> time...
> Best,
> Kathy
> 
> :
> > Hi
> >
> > Thanks James for the helpful rewrite.
> >
> > Amr, a couple thoughts:
> >
> >> On May 15, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Amr Elsadr <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Thanks for the rewrite James. I think this is very helpful. More inline:
> >>
> >> On May 15, 2015, at 10:08 AM, James Gannon
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So I would think that Bill is along the right track here, lets not try and
> ask open ended questions that allow response that don't answer the
> question.
> >>>
> >>> In an attempt to get more specific heres my suggestions:
> >>>
> >>> 	* Does the board have any plans for new/revised/additional naming
> policy pr programs outside of the new gTLD program?
> >> I'm still not exactly sure where we're going with this question. I would like
> to point out that the publication of a final report of the GNSO policy and
> implementation WG is imminent. I'm guessing it will be on the Council
> agenda by the BA meeting. If the WG recommendations are adopted by the
> Council and the Board, this will lead to significant changes in the PDP
> Manual and Annex A of the ICANN by-laws that will limit to a great extent
> what the ICANN board can do with gTLD policy without going through the
> GNSO. I guess what I'm trying to say that any discussion on this topic may be
> moot considering some of the ongoing work in the GNSO. Maybe including
> the policy and implementation WG initial report recommendations within
> the context of this topic might be helpful.
> > I agree
> >>> 	* Does the board feel that the IANA functions should remain within
> ICANN in perpetuity, if so should the community not have the right to
> periodically review the performance of the IANA and if required seek bids
> rom alternate providers?
> >> I prefer the earlier framing of this question having it begin with "Why",
> not "Does". The easy answer to "Does" would be a No from the board
> members. There have been indications that staff (perhaps not the board) are
> pushing for IANA to remain within ICANN in perpetuity. The question should
> be framed to ask the board to clear up the ambiguities and mixed messages.
> Doing this does not need to be adversarial. I'm guessing this issue will
> probably come up outside of the NCSG meeting with the board anyway, so it
> may be unnecessary to bring it up at all, or perhaps revise the question
> based on updates we hear in BA.
> > The 'indications' have generated 'clarifications' and there will be more.
> "Why" would probably be understood as we have decided ex ante we don't
> accept the clarifications and want them to account for their errors and
> misrepresentations.  There's been discussion among the chairs and
> Steve/board on trying to walk back on framings that immediately put the
> board into a defensive circle the wagons us vs. them posture with guns on
> the table.  The initial framing undermines that a bit.  We can have exactly
> the same conversation without teeing it up in a manner that will make
> several boardies walk in clenched and ready battle, a mindset that has not
> served us well.
> >
> > I do agree it will come up elsewhere anyway, there are multiple sessions
> where this will have been raised prior to our meeting with them, so I'm not
> sure why we'd repeat it, but if we're going to I'd rather the tone be collegial.
> >
> >>> 	* When performing its work, what situations does the board feel it it
> exercising its fiduciary responsibility, and does the board take into account
> the community input when making such decisions. (JG: Personal suggested
> addition, has the board received formal guidance on the boundaries if their
> fiduciary responsibility with regards to the IANA transition)
> >>> 	* On the topic of 'Public Interest Commitments' how does the board
> feel that PICs interact with existing bottom up policy making at ICANN. Does
> the board feel that there may be a conflict between PICS and
> multistakeholder policy development. How does the board plan to enforce
> PICs, specifically in the case where there may not be community agreement
> over the actions contained in the PIC?
> >> An important question to add here might be a clarification on future
> actions regarding the PICS. There is a need for a process to revise the PICS,
> their enforcement and PIC Dispute Resolution Process. Ideally, this should go
> through a GNSO PDP. Informal discussions have begun on this during and
> post-Singapore. The discussions need to become more open and inclusive.
> >>
> >>> 	* On the topic of gTLD auction proceeds, does the board plan to
> accept the community suggestions via the CCWG current being chartered or
> will the board unilaterally decide the uses for the sequestered funds? (JG:
> Bills suggestion below, my wording)
> >> Agree on including this question, although it seems to me that it would
> help if this was a question the GNSO Council also directed to the board. In S.
> Crocker's letter to the Council, he indicated that CCWG recommendations
> would be considered, but would not be the only determining factors
> influencing the Board's decision. What other considerations is the Board
> factoring in here. Instead of them doing this unilaterally, why don't they just
> ask the CCWG to consider them in their deliberations?
> > Anyway, I'll roll with whatever questions people want to ask, but I just
> would really like to dial down on the unnecessary tension at the opening
> bell.  The atmospherics of some of our encounters have been dreadful and
> have had ripple effects that are unhelpful to us.
> >
> > Best
> >
> > Bill