[Input Requested by 3 Feb] Updated AGB Text on PICs/RVCs (Version 3)
Dear all, Many thanks for your review and input during the past three IRT calls where we discussed the draft AGB text for Topic 9: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies. Based on your feedback, staff updated the draft AGB text and produced version 3 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iDLHX6fED0DiCVhbWArLgj7RzOOc0Qg2xju5J0hF.... You may see the redline of changes compared to version 2 on the wiki space here<https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/1.+Working+Documents?preview=/31549...>. While most of the changes are not significant, we’d like to highlight the following ones for your closer review: * P.8 Introduction text for RVCs (above section 3.1) * P.9 Text related to registry services in the second paragraph and footnotes 7-8 * Pp.11-12 Section 3.2.4.1 (we decided not to create a special name to refer to the RVCs used to resolve an objection or address GAC Advice) * P.12 Section 3.2.4.2 * P.14 Text related to Criterion 1 Since the discussion on community registration policies evaluated for CPE is still ongoing, we haven’t made significant changes to Section 4 on page 17 (except we moved a paragraph to the top in that section). Based on further deliberation on this issue, we will make necessary updates, if any. In the interest of getting this AGB topic ready for the upcoming public comment in February, we will appreciate your final review and input of the draft AGB text by EOB Monday, February 3. Thank you all! Ariel
Hi All, This is very good document with clear explanation of many difficult concepts. I like the way Mandatory and Safeguard PICs are laid out, and references made to the sections where we can find more detail later. Many other knots were opened and explained. There is at least one left.It’s footnote 3, which is still written in ICANNeze. We have gone to great lengths to make this document accessible to members of the public (who may not be interested in other areas of the Applicant Guidebook). Let me try one more revision (with my “history hat” on): ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Current Text: Introduction [in paragraph 3, page 2] "ICANN will only approve a proposed RVC if: 1) the RVC meets the RCE criteria set forth in [Section 3.3]below; and 2) the applicant and ICANN each agree that the proposed RVC, if included in the RA, would be enforceable under the ICANN Bylaws and as a practicable matter. As with PICs, RVCs (once approved and incorporated into the RA) are binding commitments in RA Specification 11." [Footnote 3] "In drafting the Next Round RA, RVCs are referred to as “specific voluntary public interest commitments” to conform to the existing structure and phrasing of the RA Specification 11 and ICANN’s Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP). See [Next Round Registry Agreement at Specification 11, Section 2]." CONCERN: The term “Next Round RA” is not defined in this section and even I don’t know exactly what we mean (it is the Registry Agreement for New gTLDs?). Most readers of this section will have even less context and background, and thus miss the important historical perspective and crossover terms we are trying to share. SUGGESTED REVISION: In the Registry Agreements signed by applicants in thefirst round of New gTLDs (2012), the term “RVC” did not exist and instead the term In drafting the Next Round RA, RVCs are referred to as “specific voluntary public interest commitments” and “private PICs” were used to conform to the then-existing structure and phrasing of the RA Registry Agreement's Specification 11 and ICANN’s Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (PICDRP). See [Next Round Registry Agreement at Specification 11, Section 2].The PICDRP continues this legacy naming and will apply to Mandatory and Safeguard PICs and all accepted RVCs going forward. -------------------------------- Best, Kathy On 1/27/2025 8:26 PM, Ariel Liang via SubPro-IRT wrote:
Dear all,
Many thanks for your review and input during the past three IRT calls where we discussed the draft AGB text for Topic 9: PICs/RVCs/Community Registration Policies.
Based on your feedback, staff updated the draft AGB text and produced version 3 here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iDLHX6fED0DiCVhbWArLgj7RzOOc0Qg2xju5J0hF.... You may see the redline of changes compared to version 2 on the wiki space here <https://community.icann.org/display/SPIR/1.+Working+Documents?preview=/31549...>.
While most of the changes are not significant, we’d like to highlight the following ones for your closer review:
* P.8 Introduction text for RVCs (above section 3.1) * P.9 Text related to registry services in the second paragraph and footnotes 7-8 * Pp.11-12 Section 3.2.4.1 (we decided not to create a special name to refer to the RVCs used to resolve an objection or address GAC Advice) * P.12 Section 3.2.4.2 * P.14 Text related to Criterion 1
Since the discussion on community registration policies evaluated for CPE is still ongoing, we haven’t made significant changes to Section 4 on page 17 (except we moved a paragraph to the top in that section). Based on further deliberation on this issue, we will make necessary updates, if any.
In the interest of getting this AGB topic ready for the upcoming public comment in February, we will appreciate your final review and input of the draft AGB text by EOB *_Monday, February 3_*.
Thank you all!
Ariel
_______________________________________________ SubPro-IRT mailing list --subpro-irt@icann.org To unsubscribe send an email tosubpro-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.
participants (2)
-
Ariel Liang -
Kathy Kleiman