Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.
Skip to main content

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

Last Updated:
Date

Introduction

Alan Greenberg, ALAC member from the North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) ALAC Executive Committee member, and ALAC Liaison to the GNSO composed an initial draft of this Statement [PDF, 459 KB] after discussion of the topic within At-Large and on the Mailing Lists.

On 30 October 2013, this Statement was posted on the At-Large Revised Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP) Workspace.

On that same day, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, requested ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC to send a Call for Comments on the draft Statement to all At-Large members via the ALAC Announce Mailing List.

A version incorporating the comments received was later posted to the aforementioned website.

On 8 November 2013, the Chair of the ALAC requested that ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC open a ratification vote on the Statement.

On 13 November 2013, Staff confirmed that the online vote resulted in the ALAC endorsing the Statement with 12 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 1 abstention. You may review the result independently under: http://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=35484Y93Nnvq2UhaNJza7G8I

Summary

  1. 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 honor the Public Interest Commitment aspects of their registry agreements. However, the ALAC still firmly believes that this process does not address the PUBLIC INTEREST aspect of Public Interest Commitments.
  2. There must be a provision for allowing reports of PIC violations, and particularly substantive PIC violations without the need to demonstrate harm.
  3. A significant aspect of the PIC is to ensure registrant and Internet user trust in the TLD, and to disallow reports of the perceived loss of that trust greatly lessens the benefit of the PIC, and could serve to make them completely ineffective.
  4. The ALAC also offers the following more specific comments on the terms within the PICDRP:
    • 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.