Dear all

Thanks very much to Kathy for working on these principles and posting them to the group (and for having included me in her deliberations J…)

Personally, I feel that they form a solid basis for addressing some of the issues identified around voluntary PICs (now RVCs).

Perhaps Becky and Avri could chime in on this?

Kind regards

Jorge

Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> Im Auftrag von Kathy Kleiman
Gesendet: Dienstag, 8. Dezember 2020 15:38
An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org
Betreff: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Voluntary PICs/RVCs

Hi All,

On a larger note, some of us have been working on principles for Voluntary PICs/RVCs in keeping with the 2016 Bylaws, responsive to concerns raised by the ICANN Board, and following our informative conversation with Becky and Avri, our Board liaisons.

We re-propose the three “Guardrails for Voluntary PICs” and add a fourth one for our valuable, formative Human Rights Core Value. 

Four Guardrails for Voluntary Public Interest Commitments/RVCs entered into by ICANN and New gTLD Registries 

1. Voluntary PICs/RVCs can only address issues with domain names themselves, including eligibility criteria consistent with point 2 below—not the contents of websites or apps that use domain names;

2. Commitments need to be consistent with the human rights core value established in the ICANN Bylaws;   

3. PICs/RVCs should not give registries unbounded discretion to suspend domain names; and 

4.  PICs/RVCs should not be used to create new policies that didn’t come through ICANN processes.

Please note that the Guardrails below are designed to include all GAC-negotiated settlements (original purpose of voluntary PICs), and we would be happy to insert a statement if that needs to be set out even more clearly.    

Best, Kathy