Hi Milton

Isn't "no discernible benefits" a rather sweeping and strong ex ante assertion?  Does the fact that you personally don't like the GAC's involvement in any of this necessarily mean that there can be no instances of useful public interest concerns being raised via this vehicle, even if it wasn't specified in the hallowed AGB?

I would agree with Evan that it'd be useful to engage and seek improvements.  NC is after all supposed to be into global public interest concerns, at least that's what it says on our publicity material.  Whether there's sufficient bandwidth at this particular juncture is a different matter...

Bill

On Aug 31, 2013, at 10:04 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I’ve had trouble following all the thrashing about on PICs and the PICDRP, but on the whole I view it as a disaster that should be resisted as much as possible. My understanding is that PICs were not part of the AGB, they were imposed on the process by GAC. As such, they introduce yet another more or less arbitrary form of interference in the freedom of registry operators to do things and have no discernable benefits for registrants.
>  
> From: NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2013 10:40 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [ALAC] New draft on Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Procedure
>  
> 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