<html><body style="font-family: 'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><p class="MsoNormal">Hi All,</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.</p><p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">We re-propose the three “Guardrails for Voluntary PICs” and add a fourth one for our valuable, formative Human Rights Core Value. </p><p class="MsoNormal"><b>Four Guardrails for
Voluntary Public Interest Commitments/RVCs entered into
by ICANN and New gTLD Registries </b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>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;</b></p><p><b></b></p><b></b>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>2. Commitments need to be consistent with the human rights
core value established in the ICANN Bylaws;
</b></p><p><b></b></p><b></b>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>3. PICs/RVCs should not give registries unbounded discretion
to suspend domain names; and </b></p><p><b></b></p><b></b>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>4. PICs/RVCs should
not be used to create new policies that didn’t come through ICANN processes.</b></p><p class="MsoNormal">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. </p><p class="MsoNormal">Best, Kathy</p><p class="MsoNormal"></p><p></p><br /><br /></body></html>