[CPWG] Selected public comment submissions to Subsequent Procedures Draft Final Report

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Hey Justine,

On 01/10/2020 10:07, Justine Chew wrote:
> As for your remark on PIC enforcement, I suggest that the need to
> ensure that all PICs (and RVCs, for that matter) are prescribed in a
> way that they will clearly fall or can be considered as falling within
> ICANN's remit becomes even more urgent. 

Understood. The problem is I have the feeling, based on the discussions
we have had both over the years and on the CPWG, that our community
wants more than that. There are calls for the PICs to include
information on how the TLD will be operated, including the type of
content or types of registrants (such as communities, for example) under
that TLD. There are calls for TLDs to be truly geared to serve the
public interest and such commitments to be included in the PIC. What we
are hearing here, is a confirmation by the Board that, under the revised
Bylaws, none of these could be enforced by ICANN and as I have said
enough times, if something is not enforceable, it's not worth anything.
And therefore, unless an extended set of commitments could be enforced,
this also puts a hole in the applicant support boat, in the community
applications boat, etc. because all of these could be gamed with false
pretences. It reduces everything back to a selection of applicant made
on their readiness to bid high. Or am I wrong in my understanding?

Kindest regards,

Olivier
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20201001/fcb3014e/attachment-0001.html>