Page History

...

AG Comment: After hearing the comments regarding the new DRP draft and before I actually read it, I was expecting to see a document that had some minor changes from the earlier version. Instead I found a completely new process that bore virtually no resemblance to the earlier one. The requirement to demonstrate harm is still there, and that forms the basis for this comment. But the process has been largely brought in-house, with no dispute process provider and no fees, and as such is MUCH more amenable to addressing our concern for enforcing the PUBLIC INTEREST part of Public Interest commitments.

ALAC Statement on the Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP)

The ALAC appreciates the radical changes made to the PICDRP in response to the comments of the first draft. The process seems far more appropriate for addressing potential harms caused by a registry’s failure to honour the Public Interest Commitment aspects of their registry agreements. The ALAC particularly supports the concept of taking action against repeat offenders.

...

The ALAC understands that removing the need to demonstrate harm has the potential for unreasonably increasing the number of reports that ICANN must respond to, but to demand a demonstration of personal or corporate harm makes a mockery of the term PUBLIC INTEREST Commitment.

There must be a provision for allowing reports of PIC violations, and particularly substantive PIC violations without the need to demonstrate harm. Possible sources of such reports must include:

...

The ALAC understands and generally supports the level of flexibility that ICANN has built into this version of the PICDRP regarding penalties for PIC violations. However, to balance that and create a level of confidence that ICANN is taking the PICs seriously and that violations are not being treated lightly, there must be a high level of public reporting on the entire PIC reporting and enforcement process. Transparency is key to ensuring faith in the system; publication of PIC infractions would be a very effective method of encouraging registries to honour their PICs.

Although this document is specifically on the process by which ICANN will address third-party reports on PIC violations, it is essential that ICANN makes it clear that ICANN may as well choose to take action against PIC violations purely on its own accord.

[I am tempted to compare PICs to public health regulations that restaurants are subject to. People do not have to get sick or die before a restaurant needs to correct their violations (although sickness or death is a fine way of being alerted to the problem). And in many jurisdictions, there are very prominent signs displayed in restaurants saying whether they meet public health requirements – a VERY strong incentive for not being cited for infractions. I contrast that to the position the Montreal took for many years; that one would not want to publicize infractions, because that could hurt the restaurant’s business!

...