Registry Voluntary Commitments Plenary Session - Initial planning meeting and deadline to select panelist.

[kathy at DNRC.TECH]

Hi Bruna,
Tx for sharing this. I think we are missing a question:
==> What should Registry private commitments never include?  [Answer:  
issues that should be settled subject to the PDP process and consensus  
policies]

Do you know the date and time this session will take place?  That will  
help in finding our NCSG representative!

Best, Kathy

Quoting Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com>:

> Hey all,
>
> Hope this email finds you well!
>
> I am writing just to inform you that NCSG has joined the planning teams of
> the two plenary sessions of ICANN70, and I highlight below important points
> regarding the RVCs Plenary Session initial planning meeting:
>
> *1. Registry Voluntary Commitments *
> Main outcome would be to discuss enforceable mechanisms for contracted
> parties to make commitments to the community, enforced by ICANN contract
> compliance and so forth. Session will also present a short discussion on
> PICs after the 2012 round and the Subpro process that took us to today's
> moment of RVCs.
>
> *Introduction* - History of PICs and RVCs (Jeff Neuman)
>
> *Guiding questions*
>
>    1.
>
>    On the assumption that PICs/RVCs are the main mechanism for Contracted
>    Parties to make enforceable commitments to the ICANN community  
> (or public),
>    are there limits on their enforceability, e.g. under the ICANN Bylaws?
>    2.
>
>    Are there specific challenges with enforcing PICs/RVCs as part of the
>    Registry Agreement (i.e. binding contract that all gTLD registry operators
>    enter into with ICANN)?
>    1.
>
>       Panelists should give real-life examples if possible.
>       3.
>
>    What are the education gaps that ICANN org, Contracted Parties, or other
>    parties (if any) should be addressing prior to further gTLD expansion?
>    4.
>
>    How can enforcement of PICs/RVCs be framed to avoid the risk that ICANN
>    org will need to make potential decisions on content?
>    1.
>
>       What registrant rights or interests need to be protected?
>       2.
>
>       What practical options can panelists suggest?
>
>
> This session shall have discussants, and I have secured a slot for NCSG,
> but I have the deadline until friday to inform staff about who our
> discussant will be.
>
> best,
>
> --
>
> *Bruna Martins dos Santos *
>
> Advocacy Coordinator | Data Privacy Brazil Research
> <https://www.dataprivacybr.org/en/>
>
> Member | Coalizão Direitos na Rede <https://direitosnarede.org.br/>
> Chair | Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group at ICANN
> <https://gnso.icann.org/en/about/stakeholders-constituencies/ncsg>
> Co-Coordinator | Internet Governance Caucus  <https://igcaucus.org/>
>
> Twitter: @boomartins <https://twitter.com/boomartins> // Skype:
> bruna.martinsantos
> bruna at dataprivacybr.org and bruna.mrtns at gmail.com