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/