First, I wholeheartedly agree that all commitments and obligations in a contract must be enforceable, and enforced by the other party when necessary.  Unenforceable obligations in a contract are essentially a sham (or very bad drafting and contract construction).

Second, I don't believe that a Bylaws change is necessary.  The current Bylaws state in Section 1.1(c) "ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide...."  The word "regulate" was carefully chosen, and then further clarified in the parenthetical "(i.e., impose rules and restrictions on)." A provision agreed to by both parties is not regulation nor is it an imposition, which would be a unilateral action, not a bilateral agreement.  To hammer this home further, Section 1.1(d)(iv) states that "ICANN shall have the ability to negotiate, enter into and enforce agreements, including public interest commitments [aka RVCs], with any party in service of its Mission."

Unfortunately, there is a common misconception that the "content" prohibition goes well beyond "regulation" and also prohibits other kinds of actions and activities related to content. At best, this is a misunderstanding or misremembering; at worst, it's deliberate misinformation by those who wish the content prohibition was broader in scope.

Also unfortunately, ICANN is very conservative (or timid or ineffectual) when it comes to many aspects of contract enforcement, which better explains why ICANN wants a bylaws change.

If we believe that RVCs are a good thing, and that registries should stand behind their commitments, then they must be enforceable.  If not, the RVCs should just be dropped entirely and registries can do as they please and we are back to the Wild, Wild West.

Greg