Greetings from ALAC-land.

I am interested to know if anyone in NCSG is following -- and may have an
interest in -- the proposed ICANN mechanisms for evaluating and enforcing
Public Interest Commitments in new gTLD applications.

I attach a draft of the latest "Public Interest Commitment Dispute
Resolution Procedure", that was recently brought to our attention by ALAC
member Rinalia Abdul Rahim. In her message to ALAC, regarding this draft
(which has been presented to registries), she notes that in the procedures:

   - Third parties cannot report/file PIC violation (the entity that
   files/reports  has to demonstrate that it has been harmed).
   - No mention of fees for filing violation.  Also, unclear who will bear
   the cost burden when panel is constituted to render judgement.  ICANN tends
   to pass on this type of cost burden to the parties.
   - Burden is on the violation filer/"reporter" to make a thorough and
   complete filing of objection and to make itself available for a
   "conference" or consultation.  If filings are incomplete or the reporter
   doesn't show for the conference, case is dropped.
   - Reporter can be designated as "Repeat Offender" based on track record,
   which can be counted against it in future case filings and consideration.

These issues suggest a process that is (IMO) biased against those who
report violations.

If there are to be such obstacles to challenging breaches of the PICs, why
have them in the first place?

What are the points of view on this in NCSG? Is this issue on the radar
here? Might there be interest in joint NCSG/ALAC pushback on this
anti-whistleblower bias?

Cheers,

-- 
Evan Leibovitch
Toronto Canada

Em: evan at telly dot org
Sk: evanleibovitch
Tw: el56