Re: [council] Reporting on GAC request of ICANN on monitoring PICs

[Wendy Seltzer <wendy@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Has anyone done cost analysis of the externalities of PICs, particularly
implemented this way?

Namely, if a private applicant can impose costs on ICANN by creating
unique obligations that ICANN can then be forced to police, are we as a
whole willing to subsidize that? Should we instead have an opportunity
to ask if these so-called "public interest commitments" are really in
the entire public interest, or rather ask the registry to pay for them
itself? Otherwise, like it or not, we're building a larger and larger
regulatory organization that we'll all have to pay for.

--Wendy


On 04/06/2013 07:49 PM, john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> In case you missed this, here is  news report coming out of the GAC meeting.
> 
> 
> It focuses on making PICs a part of contract language, making ICANN actively 
> responsible for their compliance and a commitment from ICANN to not sign a 
> new gTLD contract until GAC advice has been given.  Note this: "ICANN COO 
> Akram Attalah ensured: 'We will wait for GAC advice and ICANN Board reasoning 
> and will not sign any contract before and put us in a position to have a 
> contract change later.'”
>  Here is the link: 
> http://www.ip-watch.org/2013/04/06/at-icann-more-contractual-obligations-for-new-tld-operators/?utm_source=post&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=alerts
> Cheers,
> Berard
>