Changes

For example, if an applicant expresses a desire to restrict registration to a certain group of professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, etc., the applicant can create a PIC to underline this and hold their future registry to that standard. If the applicant did not originally intend to create such restrictions as defined in its TLD application, but it has received communication from the GAC that the supporting organization intends to oppose their application to the [[ICANN Board]] without such language, then the PIC can be added as an appeal to those governments.  

For example, if an applicant expresses a desire to restrict registration to a certain group of professionals, such as doctors, lawyers, etc., the applicant can create a PIC to underline this and hold their future registry to that standard. If the applicant did not originally intend to create such restrictions as defined in its TLD application, but it has received communication from the GAC that the supporting organization intends to oppose their application to the [[ICANN Board]] without such language, then the PIC can be added as an appeal to those governments.  

It is a controversial topic that many applicants think was created quickly, with no outside input, and is presented in such a way that they feel compelled to make a decision without fully understanding the proposal. It seems to apply to a small subset of applicants, as only 145 of 1,409 strings were flagged by [[GAC]] Early Warnings, the primary target for PICs.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11795-icanns-new-gtld-public-interest-commitments-idea-genius-or-pure-crazy ICANNs New gTLD Public Interest Commitments, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref> The dispute resolution procedure, the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process or PICDRP, has yet to be defined. Applicants were given one month, until March 5th, to submit their PICs.<ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm Public Comment, Base Agreement, 5 Feb 13, ICANN.org] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref>

It is a controversial topic that many applicants think was created quickly, with no outside input, and is presented in such a way that they feel compelled to make a decision without fully understanding the proposal. It seems to apply to a small subset of applicants, as only 145 of 1,409 strings were flagged by [[GAC]] Early Warnings, the primary target for PICs.<ref name= "PIC DI">[http://domainincite.com/11795-icanns-new-gtld-public-interest-commitments-idea-genius-or-pure-crazy ICANNs New gTLD Public Interest Commitments, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref> The dispute resolution procedure, the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process or PICDRP, has yet to be defined. Applicants were given one month, until March 5th, to submit their PICs. It seemed to conflict with other deadlines, such as the end of objection filling just a week later, so, "potential objectors would have to decide whether to file their objections based on PICs that have been published for just one week and that could be amended post-deadline."<ref name= "PIC DI"></ref><ref>[http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/base-agreement-05feb13-en.htm Public Comment, Base Agreement, 5 Feb 13, ICANN.org] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref>

ICANN's [[RySG|Registry Stakeholder Group]] is very much opposed to the PICs and the rest of the proposed Registry Agreement, which includes provisions to only allow new registries to work with registrars that are party to their own new registrar accreditation agreement, which has yet to be settled upon. TLD applicants have argued that they are being used as a "wedge" to force registrars into signing a still non-existent agreement. The RySg has said, the Registry Agreement “contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it should be withdrawn in its entirety." The U.S. Governement's [[NTIA|National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], from which ICANN is given its mandate and oversight, has encouraged all applicants to submit PICs that related to verification of registration, the validity of [[Whois]] data, and help protect the "creative sector", a reference to content producers that are often subject to piracy on the Internet.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11987-ntia-fights-big-contents-corner-tells-all-new-gtld-applicants-to-submit-pics NTIA Fights Big Contents Corner Tells All New gTLD Applicants to Submit PICs, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref>

ICANN's [[RySG|Registry Stakeholder Group]] is very much opposed to the PICs and the rest of the proposed Registry Agreement, which includes provisions to only allow new registries to work with registrars that are party to their own new registrar accreditation agreement, which has yet to be settled upon. TLD applicants have argued that they are being used as a "wedge" to force registrars into signing a still non-existent agreement. The RySg has said, the Registry Agreement “contains so many serious and fundamental flaws that it should be withdrawn in its entirety." The U.S. Governement's [[NTIA|National Telecommunications and Information Administration]], from which ICANN is given its mandate and oversight, has encouraged all applicants to submit PICs that related to verification of registration, the validity of [[Whois]] data, and help protect the "creative sector", a reference to content producers that are often subject to piracy on the Internet.<ref>[http://domainincite.com/11987-ntia-fights-big-contents-corner-tells-all-new-gtld-applicants-to-submit-pics NTIA Fights Big Contents Corner Tells All New gTLD Applicants to Submit PICs, DomainIncite.com] Retrieved 4 Mar 2013</ref>