You are viewing an old version of this page. View the current version.

Compare with Current View Page History

« Previous Version 4 Next »

ALAC: Advice to the ICANN Board on Subsequent Procedures (R-04G)

Date IssuedDocumentReference IDCurrent 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

DatePhaseTypeStatus Updates

 

Phase 2Phase UpdateAs 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 2AP FeedbackThe 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 2Clarifying QuestionThe 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 2Phase ChangeNow Phase 2

 

Phase 1Phase UpdateAcknowledgment sent to ALAC
  • No labels