Dear all

I would like to just briefly chime in to remind folks that the GAC consensus input includes a number of considerations about enforceability of PICs which go in a similar direction…

Kindly

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Levine, Gertrude
Gesendet: Montag, 16. November 2020 22:34
An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org; gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed edits to Recommendation 9.1 re: Category 1 Safeguards

Hi all,

In last Thursday’s SubPro meeting, we discussed Topic 9: Category 1 Safeguards – in particular, Recommendation 9.1, which reads, in part, as follows: “Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) currently captured in Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement must continue to be included in Registry Agreements for gTLDs in subsequent procedures. …”

The section in question was Specification 11 3(a):

Specification 11 3(a)-(d):

3. Registry Operator agrees to perform the following specific public interest commitments, which commitments shall be enforceable by ICANN and through the Public Interest Commitment Dispute Resolution Process . . .

(a) Registry Operator will include a provision in its Registry-Registrar Agreement that requires Registrars to include in their Registration Agreements a provision prohibiting Registered Name Holders from distributing malware, abusively operating botnets, phishing, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement, fraudulent or deceptive practices, counterfeiting or otherwise engaging in activity contrary to applicable law, and providing (consistent with applicable law and any related procedures) consequences for such activities including suspension of the domain name.

As we discussed in the meeting, Specification 11 3(a) as currently written falls short of its intended purpose, protecting end users. It is therefore necessary to revise Specification 11 3(a) to hold new TLDs that are subject to Category 1 Safeguards accountable for their registrants’ contractual compliance with those safeguards. Existing TLDs could be grandfathered as exempt from the Specification 11 3(a) revision.

It seems there was some interest among the working group members to further explore this idea.

I would propose changing Recommendation 9.1 in the final report to add the underlined text below:

“Mandatory Public Interest Commitments (PICs) currently captured in Specification 11 3(a)-(d) of the Registry Agreement must continue to be included in Registry Agreements for gTLDs in subsequent procedures.” In addition, Specification 11 3(a) should be revised to hold new TLDs that are subject to Category 1 Safeguards accountable for their registrants’ contractual compliance with those safeguards. Existing TLDs could be grandfathered as exempt from the Specification 11 3(a) revision.

I’d be interested to hear others’ thoughts.

Thanks,

Gertrude “Gg” Levine

Digital Health Manager

847/391-4497

National Association of Boards of Pharmacy

1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056