[NCSG-Discuss] Public Interest Commitments considered harmful

[Nicolas Adam]

This is a serious concern indeed. If we see evidence of 
self-constraining norm-settling behavior, then it may be relevant to ask 
ourselves if the PIC concept doesn't skew the game.

Any indication that the players will learn to grow out of it soon or, 
conversely, that the absence of broad PIC hinders non-objections? I' d 
also be happy to hear more thoughts. Perhaps the objection process will 
soon be strapped with precedent that will render these over-broad PIC 
unnecessary (I am willfully showing my lack of intimate knowledge of 
objection resolution processes)?

Nicolas

On 14/03/2013 10:18 PM, David Cake wrote:
> 	So, reading a few PICs that have been filed - while I think the PIC idea has some merit where applications are negotiating with the GAC for specific uses of domains to get around objections etc, the majority of PICs are form letters where the groups that are applying for multiple domains (Donuts, TLDH, etc) are attaching the same PIC to all domains. And in an effort to dodge objections from the GAC, IPC lobbyists, etc are basically putting in the PIC the lobbyist wish list of stuff that would not (or has not) got through the GNSO.
>
> 	So, the TLDH PIC contains commitments to restrict registration of geographic terms at the second level to government reps, and all IGO names at the second level, and Donuts has the geographic term condition and a bit of an IPC wishlist on mark protection, including the DPML.
> 	I do not think that geographic domain names need to be controlled in a domain name that is clearly not geographic (like .software), and I don't think there has been any ICANN policy to that effect.
>
> 	Once they are in the PIC, they are enforcable by ICANN, even though they are not ICANN policy (and of course the GAC etc can lobby ICANN for it to be enforced). So, while there is nothing to stop a registry voluntarily going along with a bad idea like the DPML, they could at least change their mind - once it is in their PIC, that is not guaranteed (enforcability being the whole raison d'etre for the PIC).
> 	
> 	I'm very baffled at the implications of putting in a PIC that includes commitments that are effectively policy ideas that were floated at ICANN, but never committed to by any ICANN policy body - ie the DPML.
>
> 	Thoughts?
>
> 	David