Hey Justine,
On 01/10/2020 10:07, Justine Chew
wrote:
As
for your remark on PIC enforcement, I suggest that the need to
ensure that all PICs (and RVCs, for that matter) are prescribed in
a way that they will clearly fall or can be considered as falling
within ICANN's remit becomes even more urgent.
Understood. The problem is I have the feeling, based on the
discussions we have had both over the years and on the CPWG, that
our community wants more than that. There are calls for the PICs to
include information on how the TLD will be operated, including the
type of content or types of registrants (such as communities, for
example) under that TLD. There are calls for TLDs to be truly geared
to serve the public interest and such commitments to be included in
the PIC. What we are hearing here, is a confirmation by the Board
that, under the revised Bylaws, none of these could be enforced by
ICANN and as I have said enough times, if something is not
enforceable, it's not worth anything. And therefore, unless an
extended set of commitments could be enforced, this also puts a hole
in the applicant support boat, in the community applications boat,
etc. because all of these could be gamed with false pretences. It
reduces everything back to a selection of applicant made on their
readiness to bid high. Or am I wrong in my understanding?
Kindest regards,
Olivier