+1 Chris. //Stephen From: Ccnso-council <ccnso-council-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Chris Disspain via Ccnso-council <ccNSO-council@icann.org> Reply-To: Chris Disspain <chris.disspain@identity.digital> Date: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 at 08:08 To: Alejandra Reynoso Barral <alejandra.reynoso@gmail.com> Cc: "ccNSO-council@icann.org" <ccNSO-council@icann.org> Subject: Re: [ccnso-council] FW: [CORRESPONDENCE] Tripti Sinha to Alejandra Reynoso - Reminder RE: PICs/RVCs Consultation Hello All, I am very familiar with this (sigh!). We could spend many happy hours thinking about and discussing this. However, it is my view that it would be entirely inappropriate for us to opine on matters related to ICANN’s relationship with gTLDs. We should reply that we still have no comment to make. Happy to discuss further. Cheers, CD Chris Disspain +44 7880 642456 [cid:86731993AE474E189DB54EBC4FBAB26D] Donuts and Afilias have rebranded to Identity Digital. identity.digital<http://www.identity.digital> On 2 Apr 2024 at 18:24 +0100, Sean Copeland via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org>, wrote: I agree with the earlier comments. I’m not familiar with this but I must wonder whose community standard would reign supreme when and if voluntary became compulsory? Could a sovereign latch on to it effectively making it compulsory? For sure. At the same time I’m all to aware of sites on the Internet that do real harm. I don’t want to discount that at all especially having a front row seat to it. From anecdotal evidence the problem here, at least in so far as Canadian law enforcement, is they (say they) lack the resources to effectively deal with the matter in a timely matter. Offloading that willingly by ICANN could be a poison pill that is not recoverable. One that would impact us. We, more than a corporation using an algorithm to drive people to content have the best case to be made as a common carrier. Domain name resellers while their motivation may be for the right reasons are not the police, and we are not the funding mechanism for such a thing. They can put their safety goals into their mission statements, not into an icann contract. Me Sent from my iPhone On Apr 2, 2024, at 07:24, Alejandra Reynoso Barral via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org> wrote: Dear Councillors This is a topic I'm not familiar with and I'd really appreciate the opinion of those who have been following this process more closely. After watching the recording of the plenary session at ICANN79<https://icann79.sched.com/event/1a1AR/plenary-session-community-consultation...> it seems to me that there is a concern on whether ICANN might be getting involved with content regulation, directly or indirectly, by enforcing contractual terms relating to future gTLD Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs) dealing with content; and if this is out of the scope of ICANN's mission<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/governance/bylaws-en/#article1> according to the Bylaws. My understanding is that these RVCs are proposed by the Registry and not by ICANN, nevertheless, they end up as part of the contract and ICANN's Contractual Compliance<https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/compliance-2012-02-25-en> needs to ensure that ICANN's contracted parties fulfill the requirements set forth in their agreements with ICANN. As stated in the previous letter from Tripti [page #2]<https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sinha-to-reynoso-...>: " The proposed implementation framework would limit ICANN’s direct involvement in restricting content within gTLDs. However, implementation of the content-related commitments recommended by the policy development process working group 4 could still place ICANN in a position of enforcing contract requirements that have the effect of restricting content in gTLDs. This creates a risk of successful challenges asserting that content-related commitments in future Registry Agreements are beyond the scope of ICANN’s Mission. Further, there are political, practical, and reputational risks associated with ICANN negotiating and entering into contract provisions that have the effect of restricting content in gTLDs." My first impression regarding what we are being asked to provide feedback is the following: 1. It seems strange that we [ccNSO] give feedback on a framework that we have not participated in. Isn't it out of our scope? From previous letter from Tripti [page #9]<https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sinha-to-reynoso-...>: "Please note one key difference between this proposed framework and the approach taken in the 2012 round of the New gTLD Program: This framework would require all applicants who propose to enter into RVCs and/or community gTLD commitments to include a detailed process for enforcement of such commitments in their Registry Agreements. This framework would require the applicant to engage, at the registry operator’s own expense, an independent third party to periodically audit their compliance with any content-related commitments and certify such compliance to ICANN. This third party must be identified when the commitment is proposed for evaluation, and is subject to approval by ICANN during the evaluation process" 2. Supporting ICANN’s enforcement of contractual terms that could be argued to regulate content in gTLDs. I'm not sure if we can support or not such a thing (scope), but we certainly express our opinion on ICANN's mission. 3. Supporting an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to clarify ICANN’s ability to do what was stated above in 2. Without the potential text to be used, it's very hard to say if we will support a Fundamental Bylaw change in advance. Please let me know your thoughts as soon as possible, since we are requested to reconsider by 12 April 2024. Best regards, Alejandra ******************************************* Work like you don't need the money. Love like you've never been hurt. Dance like nobody's watching. Sing like nobody's listening. And live like it's Heaven on Earth. ******************************************* On Fri, Mar 29, 2024 at 1:26 PM Bart Boswinkel via Ccnso-council <ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:ccnso-council@icann.org>> wrote: Dear all, Please find included a letter from Tripti Sinha regarding the Community Consultation on PICs/RVCs in response to the Council letter dated 30 January 2024. The Council is requested to reconsider by 12 April 2024 its initial response and “provide input to the questions, particularly regarding the consultation topic 2 concerning the ICANN Bylaws. The purpose of this consultation is twofold: 1. To solicit community feedback on a proposed framework for the implementation of these recommended commitments in the New gTLD Program: Next Round. 2. To ensure the Board understands whether the broader ICANN community supports ICANN’s enforcement of contractual terms that could be argued to regulate content in gTLDs and, if so, whether the community also supports an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to clarify ICANN’s ability to do so.” The Council letter was sent 30 January 2024 and can be found here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sinha-to-reynoso-... . This letter was a response to the letter from Tripti Sinha dated 7 December 2023 (https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/sinha-to-reynoso-.... On behalf of Alejandra, Kind regards, Bart _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org<mailto:Ccnso-council@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ Ccnso-council mailing list Ccnso-council@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-council _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
