What are Public Interest Commitments (PICs)?
As part of ICANN’s new gTLDs program, the Public Interest Commitments, shortened as
PICs, is a mechanism for ICANN to hold registries accountable for protecting the public
interests in their new gTLD applications. Registries may submit a set of PICs and
promise that they would only use registrars which prohibit registrants from distributing
malware, phishing, spamming, copyright infringement, deceptive practices, and engaging
in other activities that harm the interests of end users like you.
While submitting PICs is voluntary for registries, once submitted they would become a
binding part of their Registry Agreement (“Specification 11”) with ICANN, assuming
their new gTLDs are approved and delegated. Registries would be subject to a new
dispute policy (the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process, “PICDRP”)
that would enable third parties to file official complaints about breaches. Registries that
lose in the PICDRP would have to “implement and adhere to any remedies ICANN
imposes” up to and including the termination of the registry contract with ICANN.
Why PICs matter to you?
Some new gTLD strings, such as .doctor, .lawyer, and .bank, are linked to regulated or
professional sectors which have clear entry requirements. These strings are likely to
invoke a level of implied trust from consumers like you and me, and carry higher levels
of risks associated with consumer harm.
By attaching PICs to those new gTLD applications, registries will be committed to
ensuring that those strings are not abused on the one hand. They may be obligated to
enforce the registrars’ monitoring of the usage of those strings and to provide
consequences for abuse including the removal of domain names. If a registry fails to live
up to PICs and this causes harms to you, you can file an online complaint to ICANN.
ICANN is empowered to launch a compliance investigation, if deemed necessary, and
may seek enforcement actions against the registry. On the other hand, if due to PICs only
the registrants with valid credentials can register certain sensitive strings like .doctor and
the creative use of those domains is limited, one can also argue that the freedom of
expression of the registrants, who represent a segment of the Internet users, is limited.
In sum, the PIC mechanism aims to serve as a preventative measure to protect users from
malicious activities associated with new gTLDs. While making the Internet a safe, secure
place is its key objective, this mechanism also needs to balance user interests and
registrant rights.
What is ICANN’s Role in PICs?
ICANN Staff developed the PIC mechanism in response to the advice from ICANN’s
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC).
After the window closed for the first new gTLDs application round, the GAC reviewed a
range of specific issues concerning the new gTLDs, including consumer protection and
strings linked to regulated market sectors. During ICANN 45 Toronto Public Meeting in
October 2012, GAC issued a Communiqué, advising the ICANN Board that registries
need to be held accountable to statements made in their new gTLD applications. In
November 2012, the GAC filed and publicly posted Early Warnings on 242 individual
new gTLD applications that raise public policy concerns.
In February 2013, the New gTLDs Program Committee of the ICANN Board approved a
public comment period on the Public Interest Commitments (PICs) Specification in
response to the GAC advice and the Early Warnings. The PICs Specification serves as a
mechanism to transform registries’ new gTLD application statements into binding
contractual commitments, as well as to give applicants the opportunity to voluntarily
heighten their commitments to the public interest.
The new gTLD applicants that wish to submit PICs specifications had to do so by 05
March 2013. This expedited schedule was set to allow the GAC, the At-Large
community, and other third parties to file formal objections against strings with the
consideration of PICs. This specific role was provided in the Applicant Guidebook (see
1.1.2.6), and the deadline for string objections was 13 March 2013.
Out of the 1,930 new gTLD applications, 499 PICs specifications were submitted and
have remained accessible to the public.
How the At-Large community has contributed to PICs?
Upholding the global public interest of Internet end users is at heart of the mission of AtLarge. Hence, PICs has been a core issue for our community.
From our perspective, whereas there are many merits to PICs, PICs are difficult to
enforce. First, PICs are optional. Registries that applied for some of the most sensitive
strings didn’t submit PICs. Consequently, there are no binding commitments pertinent to
safeguarding the public interests in their Registry Agreement with ICANN, if such
provision is not already stated in other parts of their new gTLDs applications. Second, in
certain PIC statements, there is lack of detail and clarity in regard to abuse-monitoring
mechanism, credential validation procedure, and other preventative measures.
Furthermore, some PIC submissions can include wordings that allow registries to
arbitrarily change or even revoke all of its PICs, rendering the prior commitments
ineffective. Third, even though PICDRP is put in place for third parties to file complaints,
the third parties must demonstrate direct harm as a result of registries’ non-compliance
with PICs. This prerequisite prevents government, regulatory agency, news and media,
and other third parties from leveraging PICDRP to uphold user interests. Moreover, in the
event that a complaint succeeds, it is unclear how the harm caused to the third parties
would be remedied.
Since the inception of the PICs in early 2013, we have worked with stakeholder groups
and provided a lot of constructive feedback. We submitted Policy Advice Statements in
response to all PICs-related public comment requests; some of our advice on the
PICDRP, for example, has been adopted. Furthermore, we collaborated with members
from the Business Constituency on initiating an alternative mechanism (the mandatory
“Public Advisory Boards”) to PICs and launched a public comment process soliciting
further input. While support for PABs was insufficient, our policy initiative gained
traction across communities.
With the goal of enhancing the existing PICs mechanism, we stood by the GAC Advice
stated in its Beijing Communiqué (see Annex I) on applying a number of “safeguards” to
the “Category 1” new gTLDs that are particularly sensitive. Those safeguards range from
pre-validation of registrants’ credentials to the establishment of working relationships
between registries and regulatory bodies. Seeing some of the most sensitive strings
already being rolled out without sufficient safeguards put in place, during the Public
Forum of ICANN 51 we urged the ICANN Board to “freeze” the process and reexamine
the PIC mechanism via consultation with the community. Our advice rallied support from
the Business Constituency, the GAC, and other sources. As a result, a high level dialogue
with the Board New gTLDs Program Committee (NGPC) was opened in late 2014, with
the engagement of representatives from our community, the Business Constituency,
Intellectual Property Constituency, the GAC, registries, and registrars. During those
meetings, we voiced our concerns for Category 1 new gTLDs, suggested ways to mitigate
the damage of domain misuse, and discussed potential policy change to make the PICs
more permanent. Our efforts aim to make the PIC mechanism more robust, accessible,
and more easily enforceable, so the end-user interests can be more effectively protected.
Resources
- Specification 11 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement
- Full list of Public Interest Commitment Specifications
- Frequently Asked Questions - Public Interest Commitments
- Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process (PICDRP)