ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... *"ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process.* *Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy."* *...* *"The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like.* *Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening.* *Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."*
While I understand this argument, I've never completely bought it. Most of the RVCs are meant to protect consumers and include such things as only allowing second level domains to go to licensed professionals, etc. Anyone concerned about their "freedom of speech" is welcome to use another domain. There are 1,500 of them at this point. Things like "trusted notifier" arrangements are NOT enforced by ICANN, by design. ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 8:39 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."
I concur JZ On Tue, 25 July 2023, 01:55 Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
While I understand this argument, I've never completely bought it. Most of the RVCs are meant to protect consumers and include such things as only allowing second level domains to go to licensed professionals, etc. Anyone concerned about their "freedom of speech" is welcome to use another domain. There are 1,500 of them at this point. Things like "trusted notifier" arrangements are NOT enforced by ICANN, by design. ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2023 8:39 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ...
*"ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process.*
*Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy."*
*...*
*"The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like.*
*Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening.*
*Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
I too support this. The premise behind the ICANN Bylaw wording is that ICANN should never create rules about content. but RVCs are not created by ICANN. They are a REGISTRY commitment. A commitment that they are willing to have enshrined in a contract. It is ludicrous that there could be terms in an ICANN contract that are fully legal in the relevant jurisdiction but are not enforced or enforceable. ICANN enforcing a registry commitment which relates to content is NOT ICANN regulating content - the REGISTRY is doing that (and fully within its rights). ICANN is simply ensuring that contractual terms are met. Alan On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:54 PM Cheryl Langdon-Orr via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
I concur JZ
On Tue, 25 July 2023, 01:55 Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
While I understand this argument, I've never completely bought it. Most of the RVCs are meant to protect consumers and include such things as only allowing second level domains to go to licensed professionals, etc. Anyone concerned about their "freedom of speech" is welcome to use another domain. There are 1,500 of them at this point. Things like "trusted notifier" arrangements are NOT enforced by ICANN, by design. ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2023 8:39 AM *To:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ...
*"ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process.*
*Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy."*
*...*
*"The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like.*
*Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening.*
*Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
+1 Alan and JZ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alan Greenberg via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 25 July 2023 04:09 To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime I too support this. The premise behind the ICANN Bylaw wording is that ICANN should never create rules about content. but RVCs are not created by ICANN. They are a REGISTRY commitment. A commitment that they are willing to have enshrined in a contract. It is ludicrous that there could be terms in an ICANN contract that are fully legal in the relevant jurisdiction but are not enforced or enforceable. ICANN enforcing a registry commitment which relates to content is NOT ICANN regulating content - the REGISTRY is doing that (and fully within its rights). ICANN is simply ensuring that contractual terms are met. Alan On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 5:54 PM Cheryl Langdon-Orr via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: I concur JZ On Tue, 25 July 2023, 01:55 Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: While I understand this argument, I've never completely bought it. Most of the RVCs are meant to protect consumers and include such things as only allowing second level domains to go to licensed professionals, etc. Anyone concerned about their "freedom of speech" is welcome to use another domain. There are 1,500 of them at this point. Things like "trusted notifier" arrangements are NOT enforced by ICANN, by design. ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 8:39 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes." _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://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.
*1 JZ De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de Cheryl Langdon-Orr via CPWG Enviado el: lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 18:55 Para: Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> CC: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime I concur JZ On Tue, 25 July 2023, 01:55 Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > wrote: While I understand this argument, I've never completely bought it. Most of the RVCs are meant to protect consumers and include such things as only allowing second level domains to go to licensed professionals, etc. Anyone concerned about their "freedom of speech" is welcome to use another domain. There are 1,500 of them at this point. Things like "trusted notifier" arrangements are NOT enforced by ICANN, by design. _____ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org <mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 8:39 AM To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> > Subject: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes." _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://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.
And what is Mlton's proposal? Regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de David Mackey via CPWG Enviado el: lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 12:40 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."
🤫🙄 Inviato da iPhone Il giorno 24.07.2023, alle ore 20:56, Alberto Soto Roldan via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> ha scritto: And what is Mlton's proposal? Regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de David Mackey via CPWG Enviado el: lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 12:40 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes." _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
Milton, and most of the NCUC, is focused on the rights of registrants, not the interests of end users. That's their remit and I'm glad someone is doing it. The slippery slope of "consumer protection" is that it can be used by some governments as a cloak for "regime protection." So if we put the GAC, in particular, in the position of dictating what gTLDs must do, in terms of content, that could effectively become group censorship. If it's a regional TLD, it could become even more dangerous individual government censorship. So it's important that we're vigilant about that. That said, with 1,500 TLDs, if the GAC wants to heavily regulated industries to have lightly regulated strings, there's probably, on balance, a benefit. That's OUR remit to always be searching for that balance. So, not to speak for Milton, but I imagine he would suggest that the GAC not be given free reign to dictate RVCs for any string but instead to require a pretty hard core public interest justification. Just a thought. J ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:59 AM To: Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto@soto.net.ar> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime 🤫🙄 Inviato da iPhone Il giorno 24.07.2023, alle ore 20:56, Alberto Soto Roldan via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> ha scritto: And what is Mlton's proposal? Regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> En nombre de David Mackey via CPWG Enviado el: lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 12:40 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Asunto: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes." _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
From my own experiences (granted, about a decade ago, but the issues are not significantly different)...
Indeed, the balance -- between registrant rights and end-users wanting to minimize abuse -- has always been delicate. In the past ALAC has tended to be closer to the GAC position on this balance. Both of us are outside the ICANN food chain, so to speak, so our motivations are not driven by profitability, sunk costs, or proliferation. There is a fundamental flaw in the V in RVCs. Registries will promise anything if it means the difference between acceptance or rejection; upon delegation they will do what they want. PICs (or what they're called now) exist so long as convenient, but *never* survive their first challenge to the financial bottom line. Personally I don't accept, at all, the claimed equivalence between "consumer protection" and "regime protection". Any government that would want restrictions on the DNS in order to maintain political power certainly have many other -- more effective -- such tools at its disposal, many of which are beyond ICANN's reach. So I would tend to side with a GAC that is (usually) most-vocally represented by states who have genuine interest in balancing business and citizen needs. As a result, the best approach to take is a home-grown ALAC one that looks at both the unfettered-freedom-for-registrant advocates and the government regulator-wannabe approaches. It's up to us to examine every decision point on its individual merits if (and only if) we establish that the decision at hand is one that impacts end-users. There are many battles in this arena in which we have no stake; both volunteer effort and our collective stress is minimized if we meticulously avoid that which doesn't impact our mandate. Cheers, Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 4:17 PM Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Milton, and most of the NCUC, is focused on the rights of registrants, not the interests of end users. That's their remit and I'm glad someone is doing it. The slippery slope of "consumer protection" is that it can be used by some governments as a cloak for "regime protection." So if we put the GAC, in particular, in the position of dictating what gTLDs must do, in terms of content, that could effectively become group censorship. If it's a regional TLD, it could become even more dangerous individual government censorship. So it's important that we're vigilant about that. That said, with 1,500 TLDs, if the GAC wants to heavily regulated industries to have lightly regulated strings, there's probably, on balance, a benefit. That's OUR remit to always be searching for that balance.
So, not to speak for Milton, but I imagine he would suggest that the GAC not be given free reign to dictate RVCs for any string but instead to require a pretty hard core public interest justification. Just a thought. J ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2023 11:59 AM *To:* Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto@soto.net.ar> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
🤫🙄
Inviato da iPhone
Il giorno 24.07.2023, alle ore 20:56, Alberto Soto Roldan via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> ha scritto:
And what is Mlton's proposal?
Regards
Alberto
*De:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> * En nombre de *David Mackey via CPWG *Enviado el:* lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 12:40 *Para:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Asunto:* [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ...
*"**ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process.*
*Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy."*
*...*
*"The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like.*
*Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening.*
*Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
A few thoughts about Milton's blog Registry Voluntary Commitments cannot really be about anything as Milton makes it sound, first and for most these commitments need to be in the public interest in some form or another or at least serve a well defined and accepatble purpose. If a registry decides to abide by some rules that would govern its operations, someone needs to make sure that the registry follows what it says it would do. Simply put if you are offering a product and claiming that this product includes some features, those features need to exist otherwise you are lying to your customers. Acceptance of an application goes through an entire process. This process has been developed through a multi-stakeholder policy development process and thus I don't see the RVCs as a result of only one to one negotiations between ICANN and the contracted registry. Hadia ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 25 July 2023 03:34 To: Jonathan Zuck Cc: CPWG Subject: Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime From my own experiences (granted, about a decade ago, but the issues are not significantly different)... Indeed, the balance -- between registrant rights and end-users wanting to minimize abuse -- has always been delicate. In the past ALAC has tended to be closer to the GAC position on this balance. Both of us are outside the ICANN food chain, so to speak, so our motivations are not driven by profitability, sunk costs, or proliferation. There is a fundamental flaw in the V in RVCs. Registries will promise anything if it means the difference between acceptance or rejection; upon delegation they will do what they want. PICs (or what they're called now) exist so long as convenient, but never survive their first challenge to the financial bottom line. Personally I don't accept, at all, the claimed equivalence between "consumer protection" and "regime protection". Any government that would want restrictions on the DNS in order to maintain political power certainly have many other -- more effective -- such tools at its disposal, many of which are beyond ICANN's reach. So I would tend to side with a GAC that is (usually) most-vocally represented by states who have genuine interest in balancing business and citizen needs. As a result, the best approach to take is a home-grown ALAC one that looks at both the unfettered-freedom-for-registrant advocates and the government regulator-wannabe approaches. It's up to us to examine every decision point on its individual merits if (and only if) we establish that the decision at hand is one that impacts end-users. There are many battles in this arena in which we have no stake; both volunteer effort and our collective stress is minimized if we meticulously avoid that which doesn't impact our mandate. Cheers, Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56 On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 4:17 PM Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> wrote: Milton, and most of the NCUC, is focused on the rights of registrants, not the interests of end users. That's their remit and I'm glad someone is doing it. The slippery slope of "consumer protection" is that it can be used by some governments as a cloak for "regime protection." So if we put the GAC, in particular, in the position of dictating what gTLDs must do, in terms of content, that could effectively become group censorship. If it's a regional TLD, it could become even more dangerous individual government censorship. So it's important that we're vigilant about that. That said, with 1,500 TLDs, if the GAC wants to heavily regulated industries to have lightly regulated strings, there's probably, on balance, a benefit. That's OUR remit to always be searching for that balance. So, not to speak for Milton, but I imagine he would suggest that the GAC not be given free reign to dictate RVCs for any string but instead to require a pretty hard core public interest justification. Just a thought. J ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 11:59 AM To: Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto@soto.net.ar<mailto:alberto@soto.net.ar>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime 🤫🙄 Inviato da iPhone Il giorno 24.07.2023, alle ore 20:56, Alberto Soto Roldan via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> ha scritto: And what is Mlton's proposal? Regards Alberto De: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org<mailto:cpwg-bounces@icann.org>> En nombre de David Mackey via CPWG Enviado el: lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 12:40 Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Asunto: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns-contractual...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes." _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/mailman/listinfo/,DanaInfo=mm.icann.org,SSL+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<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/privacy/,DanaInfo=www.icann.org,SSL+policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/privacy/,DanaInfo=www.icann.org,SSL+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. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/mailman/listinfo/,DanaInfo=mm.icann.org,SSL+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<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/privacy/,DanaInfo=www.icann.org,SSL+policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos<https://ntra.mv.net.eg/privacy/,DanaInfo=www.icann.org,SSL+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.
History absolves. Registries have offered PICS before and commit to oversight by ICANN for compliance. That is at least 12 years old. ICANN has always had the inherent power established in contract to execute oversight of PICs. Anything a registry does that has implications for stability and security is a duty of care. Any PIC without material impact - and thus a potential to ruffle the stability and security of the DNS - is not worth a warm bucket of spit. ICANN has not and will not demonstrate an appetite to police PICS for compliance. In my humble wrongheaded opinion, calling them RVCs has not changed a thing. The playing field has not changed. The appetite for oversight will not change. Because the fundamental idea driving ICANN's engagement with its licensees has not changed. ICANN has no wish to be seen or to act as a regulator in any way, shape or form. History will absolve me. Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 at 19:35, Evan Leibovitch via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
From my own experiences (granted, about a decade ago, but the issues are not significantly different)...
Indeed, the balance -- between registrant rights and end-users wanting to minimize abuse -- has always been delicate. In the past ALAC has tended to be closer to the GAC position on this balance. Both of us are outside the ICANN food chain, so to speak, so our motivations are not driven by profitability, sunk costs, or proliferation. There is a fundamental flaw in the V in RVCs. Registries will promise anything if it means the difference between acceptance or rejection; upon delegation they will do what they want. PICs (or what they're called now) exist so long as convenient, but *never* survive their first challenge to the financial bottom line.
Personally I don't accept, at all, the claimed equivalence between "consumer protection" and "regime protection". Any government that would want restrictions on the DNS in order to maintain political power certainly have many other -- more effective -- such tools at its disposal, many of which are beyond ICANN's reach. So I would tend to side with a GAC that is (usually) most-vocally represented by states who have genuine interest in balancing business and citizen needs.
As a result, the best approach to take is a home-grown ALAC one that looks at both the unfettered-freedom-for-registrant advocates and the government regulator-wannabe approaches. It's up to us to examine every decision point on its individual merits if (and only if) we establish that the decision at hand is one that impacts end-users. There are many battles in this arena in which we have no stake; both volunteer effort and our collective stress is minimized if we meticulously avoid that which doesn't impact our mandate.
Cheers,
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada @evanleibovitch / @el56
On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 4:17 PM Jonathan Zuck via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> wrote:
Milton, and most of the NCUC, is focused on the rights of registrants, not the interests of end users. That's their remit and I'm glad someone is doing it. The slippery slope of "consumer protection" is that it can be used by some governments as a cloak for "regime protection." So if we put the GAC, in particular, in the position of dictating what gTLDs must do, in terms of content, that could effectively become group censorship. If it's a regional TLD, it could become even more dangerous individual government censorship. So it's important that we're vigilant about that. That said, with 1,500 TLDs, if the GAC wants to heavily regulated industries to have lightly regulated strings, there's probably, on balance, a benefit. That's OUR remit to always be searching for that balance.
So, not to speak for Milton, but I imagine he would suggest that the GAC not be given free reign to dictate RVCs for any string but instead to require a pretty hard core public interest justification. Just a thought. J ------------------------------ *From:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Sent:* Monday, July 24, 2023 11:59 AM *To:* Alberto Soto Roldan <alberto@soto.net.ar> *Cc:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Subject:* Re: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
🤫🙄
Inviato da iPhone
Il giorno 24.07.2023, alle ore 20:56, Alberto Soto Roldan via CPWG < cpwg@icann.org> ha scritto:
And what is Mlton's proposal?
Regards
Alberto
*De:* CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> * En nombre de *David Mackey via CPWG *Enviado el:* lunes, 24 de julio de 2023 12:40 *Para:* CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> *Asunto:* [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime
fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller <https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ...
*"**ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process.*
*Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy."*
*...*
*"The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like.*
*Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening.*
*Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."* _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://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.
Dear All, I must say "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance" that are always welcome for the much-wanted variety in a multi-stakeholder context. IMHO, at all levels, it is good have the idea of "contract" to make any design visible. It is good to "design by contract" to get a higher abstraction for governance. As a matter of fact, DNS as an "Application Level" idea has been yielding great dividends. Any clarification of the scope of the term may have to be ironed out at the local / institutional level. Personally, I have been having good experience with the terms used in the AASC (ALAC Appointment Selection Committee). Slightly more than a year back, it was easy for me to indicate that ICANN expands AASC in this manner. I suppose ICANN Remit is the default "Contract" with expected standards of behaviour of the stakeholders. Sincerely, Gopal T V 0 9840121302 https://vidwan.inflibnet.ac.in/profile/57545 https://www.facebook.com/gopal.tadepalli ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. T V Gopal Professor Department of Computer Science and Engineering College of Engineering Anna University Chennai - 600 025, INDIA Ph : (Off) 22351723 Extn. 3340 (Res) 24454753 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ________________________________ From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Sent: 24 July 2023 21:09 To: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org> Subject: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns...> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ... "ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process. Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy." ... "The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like. Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening. Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."
participants (10)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Alberto Soto Roldan -
Carlton Samuels -
Cheryl Langdon-Orr -
David Mackey -
Evan Leibovitch -
gopal -
Hadia Abdelsalam Mokhtar EL miniawi -
Jonathan Zuck -
Roberto Gaetano