I would add .osaka to the mix. There were 2 .osaka applications, both with government support, and one of them prevailed CPE and became the registry. https://itp.cdn.icann.org/en/files/registry-agreements/osaka/osaka-agmt-html... Their specification 12 has this: "Content/Use Restrictions Registry Operator is in agreement with the Osaka Prefectural Government’s desire that pornographic, vulgar and highly objectionable content is adequately monitored and removed from the namespace. This type of content will be strictly prohibited in the TLD. In order to strictly enforce this registration policy, Registry Operator will implement an Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) as well as include an Abuse Point of Contact on its website as a means to provide a method for users to submit complaints of abuse to Registry Operator. Registry Operator believes that a strong abuse prevention policy in the TLD is a very important benefit to the Osaka community and will ensure that contracted parties adhere to its policies. The AUP will be incorporated into the Registry-Registrar Agreement and give the Registry Operator the right to take any appropriate actions needed to remedy a particular type of abuse. All ICANN accredited registrars which enter into an agreement with the Registry Operator will be required to pass through the Acceptable Use Policy to its Resellers (if applicable) and finally, to all registrants. “ Rubens
Em 17 de jan. de 2025, à(s) 12:59, Jeff Neuman via SubPro-IRT <subpro-irt@icann.org> escreveu:
All,
In preparation for a conversation on the relationship of the Community Priority Evaluation (CPE) process and its relationship to the Registry Commitments Evaluation process (RCE), I have prepared the following Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E0PDEIFuzRC180gEgj5hUYl4IgFuL7l_j79_E5h1... which looks at certain registration policies of applicants that applied in the last round as community TLDs that became registries. Most of them did not go through CPE, but all of them had to propose their registration policies in their application as if they would be going through CPE and all of them have contractual requirements in their Agreements in Specification 12.
Context for Discussion -
1. We now know that the ICANN Agreement in the future will no longer contain contractual provisions governing the use of content as this is not something that ICANN can enforce.
2. ICANN org has interpreted that to mean (I believe incorrectly) that registration policies submitted for CPE must not contain any provisions that govern the use of content (as those commitments will not pass RCE.
3. However, I believe that CPE is a separate and distinct process than RCE and that in order to qualify as a community many registries will still want to propose commitments not for inclusion in the ICANN Agreement, but rather to get endorsements from their community members and to run their registries. Again, these commitments would not be for ICANN to enforce, but rather for the Registry to implement and through its own set up enforcement mechanisms.
4. But the current language says that if a commitment does not pass RCE (meaning ICANN cannot enforce the commitment), then it cannot even be considered as part of CPE, which again I believe is wrong.
Overall Points: The current language in proposed text states that any commitments in a registry policy (regardless of who is enforcing it) must pass RCE (ie, be enforceable by ICANN) in order to be considered in the CPE process. However, CPE should be able to consider commitments made by a registry regardless of whether they are intended to be in the ICANN Registry Agreement or not. Just because ICANN is not able to regulate content does not mean that the registries themselves cannot have policies (which they enforce privately) that do. And those policies are important for the community to see and evaluate.
Take the following two examples:
A. From .Bank (did not go through CPE because ended up uncontested): Registrants may not use its domain name for " any purposes prohibited by the bank’s charter or license."
- Now we all know this is not something that ICANN can enforce and would unlikely pass RCE. But that does not mean that this requirement is not crucial to be contained in a registration policy and would be expected to be in an applicant's application for comment and for the purposes of getting community support. Therefore, to say that this should not be even considered in CPE does not make sense.
B. From .sport (which passed CPE): "Registrant will not use the .Sport domain name for "Promoting and advocating any conduct and/or activity that constitutes or may constitute an anti-doping rule violation under the World Anti-Doping Code."
- Again, we all know this is not intended for ICANN to enforce and would not be intended in the future to be contained within the ICANN Registry Agreement. It would not pass RCE. But to say that therefore it should not even be considered in CPE seems wrong. This policy may be critical to the Sport Community, and they would expect to see it in the registration policies. It may be required to get appropriate endorsements and support (which is evaluated under CPE).
I am still looking for other community TLD policies and will update the Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1E0PDEIFuzRC180gEgj5hUYl4IgFuL7l_j79_E5h1...
If anyone wants to help, please.......
Sincerely,
Jeff
<Outlook-s52cgmgm.png> _______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list -- subpro-irt@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt@icann.org> To unsubscribe send an email to subpro-irt-leave@icann.org <mailto:subpro-irt-leave@icann.org>
_______________________________________________ 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.