Exactly. But it's worse than that.

Crossing the border between enforcing technical norms and cultural ones takes one though heavily-mined territory. While most jurisdictions can agree on, say, abuse prohibitions, interpretations of objectionable content rules -- even self-imposed rules -- will vary greatly between them.

And let us be reminded that behind all of the superficial and pretentious claims, ICANN's only public accountability that really matters is to the State of California. As a result, the US Constitution and notably its first amendment is most definitely in play and will be a factor in litigation should the Board make such ill-advised changes. I would be extremely surprised had it not been briefed along these lines already, and ICANN is famously risk-averse (as it should be). While ICANN is not technically a government body, its near-monopoly control over domain assignments and its historical ties to the DoC will make first-amendment absolution very difficult. But even should ICANN prevail in such a contest, the (very public) battle itself can inflict mortal wounds at a time when the DNS itself is under challenge from multiple directions.

Best to leave RVCs as what they have always been: cosmetic and aspirational.

Nobody was ever fooled by them ... well almost nobody.
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.

This is most certainly a case in which the proposed ICANN remedy is more lethal than the disease.

- Evan