[CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime

[Jonathan Zuck]

While I understand this argument, I've never completely bought it. Most of the RVCs are meant to protect consumers and include such things as only allowing second level domains to go to licensed professionals, etc. Anyone concerned about their "freedom of speech" is welcome to use another domain. There are 1,500 of them at this point. Things like "trusted notifier" arrangements are NOT enforced by ICANN, by design.
________________________________
From: CPWG <cpwg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of David Mackey via CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2023 8:39 AM
To: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>
Subject: [CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime

fyi: Sharing this blog post by Milton Mueller<https://www.internetgovernance.org/2023/06/15/the-big-question-facing-icanns-contractual-governance-regime/> regarding a discussion held at ICANN 77, because it seems relevant to the At-Large CPWG community ...

"ICANN never ceases to pose fascinating issues in global governance. At ICANN 77, held in Washington DC June 12 – 16, a dramatic debate took place about ICANN’s proper scope of authority. Some interest groups (mainly Registries and GAC) want ICANN to be empowered to enforce compliance with Registry Voluntary Commitments (RVCs), formerly known as Public Interest Commitments (PICs). Civil society groups and some Internet businesses see in the proposed change a threat to freedom of expression on the internet and an attempt to undermine ICANN’s multistakeholder policy development process.

Underlying this debate are important questions about the relationship between private contracting, multistakeholder governance, and public policy."

...

"The RVC problem is really a derivative of a more fundamental flaw in ICANN’s new TLD processes. Instead of defining clear, simple rules for nondiscriminatory awards of new TLDs, ICANN has created a bureaucratic morass of regulations and veto powers. The fate of a TLD application is not governed by any predictable rules. It is all discretionary, and the GAC in particular wants to be in a position to veto or modify applications and names that it doesn’t like.

Fortunately, Registry commitments that are designed to regulate content and services and make ICANN their enforcer are clearly violations of ICANN’s fundamental bylaws. The plot to bypass bottom up policy making process cannot succeed unless those bylaws are modified, and the modification would be so fundamental and the social gain so miniscule that it is hard to imagine it ever happening.

Never underestimate the ability of ICANN’s board, the GAC and DNS industry short-term self-interest to screw things up, however. Keep an eye on this process, and we hope this blog post helped you understand the stakes."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230724/71761f98/attachment.html>