Per our phone conference with Board member liaisons yesterday, the amended ByLaws in 2016 make it clear that ICANN has the ability to enforce all existing PICs from the 2012 round, to renew those PICs in contract renewals with those registries, and to enter into and enforce all agreements, including PICs, "in service of its Mission". (See Section 1.1. (d) B. (iv) as to entering into new PICs.) 2016 ByLaws are attached again for reference. See Section 1.1. As discussed yesterday, it may be extremely helpful to the Board for the WG to discuss how PICs and RVCs may be easily and objectively determined to be in service of the security, stability, and resiliency of the internet's unique identifiers. A pretty obvious example might be safeguard eligibility requirements. Anne From: Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org> On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio--- via Gnso-newgtld-wg Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:02 AM To: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposed edits to Recommendation 9.1 re: Category 1 Safeguards [EXTERNAL] ________________________________ 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<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org>> Im Auftrag von Levine, Gertrude Gesendet: Montag, 16. November 2020 22:34 An: gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org>; gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces@icann.org<mailto: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, Gg Gertrude "Gg" Levine Digital Health Manager 847/391-4497 [cid:image001.png@01D6C251.3CA25760]National Association of Boards of Pharmacy 1600 Feehanville Dr, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 www.nabp.pharmacy<http://www.nabp.pharmacy/> | glevine@nabp.pharmacy<mailto:glevine@nabp.pharmacy> [cid:image002.png@01D6C251.3CA25760]<https://www.facebook.com/NABP1904/> [cid:image003.png@01D6C251.3CA25760]<https://twitter.com/nabp> [cid:image004.png@01D6C251.3CA25760]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/national-association-of-boards-of-pharmacy/> [cid:image005.png@01D6C251.3CA25760]<https://www.youtube.com/c/NationalAssociationofBoardsofPharmacy> ________________________________ This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. ?2510-2521.