[NCSG-Discuss] Public Interest Commitments considered harmful

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

If I understand, I think this is great.

I have always argued that a lot of things people asked for as policy, should be things that Registries do voluntarily.

That was my understanding of  the original point of the GNSO policy about NO required RPMs, but lots of suggested RPMs.  Of course this decision was the first policy recommendation that the Board transgressed on with the STI.

I think it is a good thing for the Registries to make up their own minds about what rules they wish to submit themselves to.  And for the community to continue to object or decide to withdraw the objection.  That is the way I thought the process was supposed to work from the start.

a. application proposes
b. the world objects
c. the application reviews it and takes it into account.
d. either the objection is withdrawn or adjudicated.

With a parallel process for the GAC objections, aka advice.

So I guess I am missing the point about the problem.

avri

On 14 Mar 2013, at 22:18, 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