The topic of Public Interest Commitments and the PIC Dispute Resolution Process have come up again and again since their inception. prior to the 2012 round. Some argue that they are not well enforced by ICANN Contract Compliance and that the DRP process is rigged against a complainant. Others argue they were a bad idea from the start because they could potentially curtail registrant rights. There is nearly universal agreement that change is necessary but what should that change look like? In this session we'll start that discussion by involving panelists from the IP community, the End user Community, Civil Society and ICANN Compliance.

The At-Large has made it its mission to combat DNS Abuse and has started a number of conversations on that topic. Many registrars and registries are wary of new specific contract provisions and believe the environment to be too fluid to manage via the contract. At the same time, it's become clear that ICANN Contract Compliance lacks tools to combat systemic abuse when it identifies it. One solution would be to simply negotiate a "threshold" of abuse, described as a percentage of second level registrations being used for DNS Abuse. If that percentage goes over the the agreed upon threshold, the contracted party is in breach and ICANN Contract Compliance can begin to take action. With this model contracted parties would be free to use whatever tools they deemed necessary to keep their percentage of abuse below the threshold. Let's discuss!

Most of the 2012 applications for new strings came from a specific type of organization, with substantial resources, more often than not, in the developed world. Communities rarely succeeded in their efforts. How do we broaden the profile of applicants to be more incliusive of communities and applicants needing support. What do the current proposals from SubProc look like? What more could we do?