Hi Robin, Perhaps this is an area in which ALAC and NCSG may find common ground. The ALAC has generally found that the PICDRP, as proposed, does not at all serve the public interest. It is designed to allow monied interests to complain about other monied interests, but otherwise is no remedy to anyone else. Here is the ALAC statement on the first draft proposal<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/pdfaEHWCSZEBL.pdf>. Unfortunately, not much has changed between then and now. IMO the process is heavily weighted against whistleblowers, advocates and anyone else -- without a direct FINANCIAL interest -- who is impacted by a registry's changing its own rules in mid-stream. ALAC is planning to make another statement to the Board on this issue, largely reiterating the public-interest deficiencies which have not been addressed since the first iteration. A joint effort would be useful if the NCSG finds common ground with us on this. - Evan On 7 October 2013 13:37, Robin Gross <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > NCSG and its members may wish to submit a comment on ICANN's plan to be > the arbiter of global the public interest. > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.htm > > > > > Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.htm#> > **Comment / Reply Periods (*) > Comment Open Date: > 2 October 2013 > > > > > > > Comment Close Date: > 23 October 2013 - 23:59 UTC > Reply Open Date: > 24 October 2013 > Reply Close Date: > 14 November 2013 - 23:59 UTC > Important Information Links > Public Comment Announcement<http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-02oct13-en.htm> > To Submit Your Comments (Forum) <[log in to unmask]> > View Comments Submitted<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-02oct13/> > Brief Overview > Originating Organization: > ICANN > Categories/Tags: > > - Top-Level Domains > > Purpose (Brief): > Seeking comments on the Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute > Resolution Procedure > Current Status: > Awaiting comments > Next Steps: > Review public comments and revise if necessary > Staff Contact: > Krista Papac > Email Staff Contact<[log in to unmask]> > Detailed Information > Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose: > > As previously reported, a dispute resolution procedure will be put in > place to address complaints that a Registry in the New gTLD Program may > not be complying with the Public Interest Commitment(s) in Specification 11 > of their Registry Agreement with ICANN. A draft procedure was published > in draft form on 15 March 2013. A variety of feedback was provided, > including comments submitted through public comment forum<http://forum.icann.org/lists/comments-draft-picdrp-15mar13/> > . ICANN has considered the input received and has created a Revised PICDRP<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.pdf> [PDF, > 209 KB] that is being published for comment. > Section II: Background: > Specification 11 in potentially over 500 new gTLD Registry Agreements > will have voluntary Public Interest Commitments that the Registry has made > and with which the Registry has agreed to comply. Specification 11 will > also have mandatory Public Interest Commitments that the Registry must > comply with in all new gTLDRegistry Agreements. To effectively and > efficiently resolve any issues that might arise regarding non-compliance > with a Registry’s Public Interest Commitments, ICANN Contractual > Compliance will administer the PICDRP. > Section III: Document and Resource Links: > > - Revised PICDRP<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-02oct13-en.pdf> [PDF, > 209 KB] (2 October 2013) > - Draft PICDRP Requirements<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/draft-picdrp-15mar13-en.pdf> [PDF, > 349 KB] (15 Mar 2013) > - Registry Agreement<http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-02jul13-en.pdf> [PDF, > 2.15 MB] > > Section IV: Additional Information: > Comments submitted during the previous public comment period have largely > been addressed in this Revised PICDRP, including the request that ICANN itself > ensured compliance with the PICDRP. ICANN notes that a couple of comments > submitted in the public comment forum suggested that the standard of harm > be changed from "measurable" to "material" and that the burden of proof be > changed from "preponderance of evidence" to "clear and convincing > evidence." ICANN has considered these requests in light of the nature of > the obligations that are to be challenged under the PICDRP. We note that > these specific issues were debated during the development of the Trademark > Post-Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (Trademark PDDRP) and the > Registry Restriction Dispute Resolution Procedure (RRDRP), and a > distinction was made between the standards and burden of proof for the > Trademark PDDRP as opposed to the RRDRP because of the obligations that > those procedures were meant to address. As the Trademark PDDRP is intended > to essentially address a pattern and practice of misconduct by the registry > operator, the community discussion ultimately lead to a standard of harm > and burden of proof higher than that for the RRDRP, in which the Registry > Operator is being challenged for failing to comply with a commitment that > it made in its Registry Agreement. Given that the PICDRP will also be > challenging the Registry Operator's failure to comply with a commitment > that it made in its Registry Agreement, it seems logical to adopt the same > standard and burden of proof as found in the RRDRP. Accordingly, the > standard of harm and burden of proof in the PICDRP will remain as stated in > the version that was posted for public comment. > > > ** > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56