On 18/05/2024 23:04, Evan Leibovitch wrote:


On Sat, May 18, 2024 at 5:47 PM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:


On 18/05/2024 22:38, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG wrote:
Leave each registry using RVCs to implement and self-enforce as they wish, without ICANN involvement. As Carlton said, let the market inflict any necessary punishment.

Sorry but this translates to me as: "Let Governments regulate" - because that's exactly what a "wild west" situation would bring in the long run.


That presumes that RVCs are important enough for governments to care about.

They won't. They will see this as a non-issue, just as I do.

Compared to the likes of foreign election interference, crypto frauds, organized disinformation, deepfakes, under- and over-surveillance, AI and copyright, the sad state of journalism ... RVCs and indeed the DNS aren't on anyone's priority list except ours. Every now and then we need to remind ourselves that most of our issues just aren't as earth-shattering as we think they are, outside the ICANN bubble. My personal take is that we spend so much time on trivia like this that we risk not being on the ball when issues with real end-user impact appear.


Please provide a source that says that RVCs are not important enough for governments to care about. Ditto for the DNS.
I should point you to the Digital Services Act that specifically mentions intermediaries including Domain Name Registrars.
https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en

The Digital Services Act is a real world end user issue. I'd be surprised there's nothing like it in preparation on your side of the pond.
Kindest regards,

Olivier