ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-04G)
| Date Issued | Document | Reference ID | Current Phase |
|---|---|---|---|
| ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-04G) | AL-ALAC-ST-0421-02-01-EN (R-04G) | Phase 2 | Understand |
DESCRIPTION
As such, the ALAC recommends that the Board instigate a review of the PICDRP to allow for complaints against any alleged registry violation of a PIC or RVC to be taken up and determined not only where the complainant is able to show evidence of significant harm suffered (as is currently required) but also on the grounds of foreseeable harm to themselves or even a third party.
DEPENDENCIES
Progress pending the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Final Report.
STATUS UPDATES
| Date | Phase | Type | Status Updates |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 2 | Phase Update | As noted at the joint Board-ALAC session at ICANN75, the Board greatly appreciates the ALAC's responses to the Board's questions. The Board continues to review and consider the ALAC advice, to determine whether, in addition to informing the Board’s deliberations, there are actionable items that may require Board action before (or after) the Board takes action on the SubPro policy recommendations. The Board anticipates that this exercise will be completed in the first half of 2023 and that a response to the advice would come at the time of action on the SubPro Final Report – or shortly thereafter. |
| Phase 2 | AP Feedback | The ALAC is open to the Board’s proposed approach for an applicant / Registry that wishes to apply for an RVC must also demonstrate an objective evaluation methodology for such RVC - to be applicable to RVCs only - and we are prepared to discuss this approach further. We suggest that such an approach would also benefit from the use of the Board’s Global Public Interest Framework on Commitment a.iv, Core value b.ii, and Core value b.vi, and with reference to GAC Consensus Advice. We further suggest that such an approach must also be subject to community input. Notwithstanding, there remains a crucial need for more particularized reporting by ICANN Contractual Compliance in respect of thresholds which are derived and used to assess compliance or non-compliance of an RVC for action to be taken by ICANN. |
| Phase 2 | Clarifying Question | The Board would like to discuss with the ALAC a possible different approach to the enforcement of PICs/RVCs which places more responsibility on an applicant / Registry to develop RVCs which incorporate an objective evaluation methodology. |
| Phase 2 | Phase Change | Now Phase 2 |
| Phase 1 | Phase Update | Acknowledgment sent to ALAC |
