I've reversed the order of certain parts of your message, Avri



> -----Original Message-----

> 

> I agree that they way they were done in the last round was adhoc and

> arbitrary. 



Good, then the comment can say this. 



> As far as coercive, while some may claim to having been coerced

> many applicants did refuse to create any without any repercussion.



Name names. Tell us who told the PIC demanders to get lost and survived 



> 

> Not only do I disagree with the way it is worded, I think that PICs are

> important and should be enforced.



Would it be more accurate to say that you think it's great when registries make commitments to something called "the public interest"?

Which they can do without PICs being imposed on them by external parties during the application process?



> I also think that the issue of PICs should be discussed in a PDP and that they

> probably should be part of the gTLD SubPro PDP WG consideration.  New

> gTLD SubPro should talk about their use and others should talk about their

> enforcement.



That would be a good way to approach the issue. We could say, "some NCSG members hate and despise PICs and think they ought to vanish from the face of the earth. Others support them. This issue should be resolved via a PDP.



> I think that if an applicant applies for name and commits in their application to

> enforce some public interest conditions, those should be included in the

> contract and should be enforced.



If it's part of their application, yes. If it's imposed on them by the rest of the community, no