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

[Raphael Beauregard-Lacroix]

Kathy, it's at 1530 UTC on March 25 :)

Have a nice day,

On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:06 PM <kathy at dnrc.tech> wrote:

> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-discuss/attachments/20210311/6608ab6f/attachment.htm>