2024-03-04 ICANN79 Plenary Sessions: PICs/RVCs Community Consultation

1

Siva Muthusamy

What if the Registry operator for .election is a political party and denies on some grounds .election domain names to the opposition candidates? How would  ICANN or the third party ensure that a positive Public Interest Commitment to preserve the sanctity of the TLD space does not get distorted into a negative power to cause disadvantages to the Opposition, as in the case of .election? This is an example that may be extrapolated in various situations wherein some of the positive voluntary commitments could get distorted by malice

Answered by Becky Burr live, see Transcript (p.44):  

“...It's sort of what I was talking about, Siva, and I think we're getting at the same issue. There is a question of whether you want ICANN to be deciding or even enforcing somebody else's decision about whether somebody has the right to say what they're saying with regards to elections. And I think that's problematic and we're going to have more conversations about that.”

2

Michael Palage

The repeated use of the word “content” is polarizing. A better more neutral wording would be “use” of the domain name. My question to all panelists, but specifically to Jeff and Kathy, one of ICANN’s earliest and most successful policies was the UDRP. The UDRP is a contractual enforceable third party right based on the registration and “use” of a domain name. That “use” analysis requires an analysis of the content on that website.

Continuation of previous question. Do the panelists view the UDRP as content regulation? Has ICANN not effectively delegated to Dispute Providers this analysis while leaving ICANN compliance to focus on other important priorities?

Answered by Becky Burr live, see Transcript (pp.44-45):  

“...I just want to say with respect to that (and I see you sitting right in front of me), the Spec 1 … The picket fence for registries and registrars are different. The picket fence for registries says no content. The picket fence for registrar says you can look at use of the string. And that is specifically for the purpose of deciding whether a use provides evidence of a trademark violation. So I'm not sure (we can talk about this a lot more) that that use is helpful in that context and would point out that the registry statement of the picket fence has always prohibited content views. So let's not mix content and trademark, which we brought in since day one.”

3 

Jorge 

Starting with a discussion about content regulation is perhaps not the best idea. New gTLDs have a potential for innovation.

The applicants have to have the freedom to establish innovative models and frameworks. Such are established through contractual conditions. And

ICANN is the ultimate enforcer of such. So, we have a question about the scope of contractual freedom. And where that ends, and what such contractual rules should not be honored by ICANN, e.g. when they are clearly anticompetitive

ICANN org Written Response Following ICANN79 Plenary 

Thank you for your comment. To understand what types of restrictions that should or should not be accepted for inclusion in future Registry Agreement, considering the scope of ICANN’s Mission, are some of the key questions raised in the community consultation on proposed PICs/RVCs implementation framework. It is also a focus of the ICANN79 plenary discussion. The community input received will help inform ICANN Board’s consideration for the proposed implementation approach for PICs/RVCs, in relation to the “scope of contractual freedom” that you mentioned. 

4

JFQueralt

Is there documentation on the flow/process involving VCs, where do they apply and their consequences?

ICANN org Written Response Following ICANN79 Plenary 

The Applicant Guidebook will include information pertaining to PICs/RVCs that future applicants should be aware of. After the draft is developed, it will be shared with the Subsequent Procedures Implementation Review Team for input and subsequently published for Public Comment to solicit community feedback.