AT-LARGE GATEWAY
At-Large Regional Policy Engagement Program (ARPEP)
At-Large Review Implementation Plan Development
Page History
Comment Close Date | Statement Name | Status | Assignee(s) and | Call for Comments | Call for Comments Close | Vote Announcement | Vote Open | Vote Reminder | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23.10.2013 | Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) | VotingAdopted | Alan Greenberg (NARALO) | 30.10.2013 | 06.11.2013 | 07.11.2013 | 07.11.2013 | 11.11.2013 | 12.11.2013 | 13.11.2013 | Krista Papac krista.papac@icann.org TBC | AL-ALAC-ST-1113-02-00-EN |
...
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to download a copy of the PDF below.
|
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
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. Placing contract enforcement within ICANN and the removing the need to pay for the privilege of reporting a contractual infringement sends a far better message regarding ICANN’s attitude towards contractual compliance. The ALAC particularly supports the concept of taking action against repeat registry offenders.
However, the ALAC still firmly believes that this process does not address the PUBLIC INTEREST aspect of Public Interest Commitments.
...
- The use of the undefined term “good standing” is both vague and inappropriate. If there are criteria under which ICANN will decide to not follow up on a report, they must be clearly stated and subject to appeal.
- There should be no requirement for interaction between a Reporter and Registry if the complaint issues identified in the report are factually identifiable; there is no need to negotiate evidence-based issues.
- Although perhaps obvious to some, it should be explicit that the Standing Panel will include one or more members with clear understanding of Public Interest issues.
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.
...