[CPWG] ICANN’s Contractual Governance Regime

[Cheryl Langdon-Orr]

I concur JZ

On Tue, 25 July 2023, 01:55 Jonathan Zuck via CPWG, <cpwg at icann.org> wrote:

> 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."*
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20230725/ab33fd3e/attachment.html>