Note well taken

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 20 Sep 2016, at 11:04, Mueller, Milton L wrote:

> Hey Carlos
>
> were not PICs a voluntary offer by applicants???
>
> MM: No. Here is the real situation. An applicant applied for a TLD 
> according to rule set in the DAG which says if she does X, Y and Z the 
> application will be approved. Then she gets a comment from the GAC 
> which says “we will actively oppose your application and tell the 
> board to not approve it unless you do things we want you to do.” 
> Think of the risk for the applicant. They have already committed 
> hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars to the application. 
> They have been waiting for 3, 4 maybe 5 years to start. The GAC/ALAC 
> attack on their application might sway the board – it is all 
> arbtitrary, they don’t know. So what do they do? They minimize the 
> risk by caving in to their demands, which take the form of a PIC
>
> why do you say PICs (as opposed to Safeguards) were imposed by GAC / 
> ALAC?
>
> MM: As far as I know, which could be wrong, no one in the GNSO asked 
> applicants to institute a PIC.
> In general, PICS are an inherently arbitrary and policy-circumventing 
> part of the new TLD process. If an applicant WANTS to make a PIC, it 
> can do so in its application, we don’t need PICs at all. All PICs do 
> is allow extortion of applicants to get them to introduce policies 
> that could never gain consensus in the GNSO process.
>
> Hope this explains
>
> Dr. Milton L Mueller
> Professor, School of Public Policy<http://spp.gatech.edu/>
> Georgia Institute of Technology
> Internet Governance Project
> http://internetgovernance.org/