Hi Olivier, The ICANN Org comment was submitted through GDS (Global Domains & Strategy, formerly GDD, and headed by Theresa Swinehart) so not nameless; I merely dispensed with sharing cover letters, so that's my bad. 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. Justine On Thu, 1 Oct 2020 at 15:51, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:

Dear Justine,

A nameless ICANN Org has commented? Is this common?

As for the Board comment, I note the issue of PIC enforcement is an issue since the Bylaws have tightened the Board's ability to do anything that could be deemed outside its Mission. I wonder how, with a tight interpretation of the Bylaws, the Public Interest can be upheld. Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 01/10/2020 06:16, Justine Chew wrote:

For those interested, here are *some* of the submissions to the public comment process for the Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report that closed on 30 Sep 2020:

- ALAC <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/13799> *(publish pending)* - ICANN Board <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/2020-09-30%20Maar...> - ICANN org <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/ICANN%20Org%20Fee...> - GAC <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/GAC%20Subpro%20Fi...>

*We may want to pay particular attention to the comments by the ICANN Board.*

These are shared by way of links in case attachments are inadvertently filtered out during mail list distribution.

Kind regards,

Justine ---

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ 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.

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html

I think you express the main concern well. I think PICs require a separate PDP Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.InnovatorsNetwork.org<http://www.InnovatorsNetwork.org> ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Thursday, October 1, 2020 5:04:33 AM To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] Selected public comment submissions to Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report 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