Changes

==Final Report and Recommendations==

==Final Report and Recommendations==

The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted it to the ICANN Board on Febrary 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />

The Working Group's Final Report was submitted to the GNSO Council on January 20, 2021.<ref>[https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Read-the-SubPro-PDP-Newsletter---January-2021-Edition.html?soid=1122025845763&aid=qJxZ65sQtok SubPro Newsletter], January 2021.</ref> The Council approved the Final Report and submitted its "Final Outputs for ICANN Board Consideration" to the ICANN Board on Febrary 2, 2021.<ref name="subpro" />  

===Central Recommendations and Themes===

===Central Recommendations and Themes===

====Predictability Framework and SPIRT====

====Predictability Framework and SPIRT====

The enforcement of [[Public Interest Commitments|Registry Voluntary Commitments]] was a subject of much discussion at [[ICANN 70]]. The SubPro Working Group's guidance on the subject largely maintains the status quo regarding the use of RVCs by applicants. The WG did recommend expanding the jurisdiction of the [[PICDRP]] to expressly incorporate Registry Voluntary Commitments. On page 49, in response to the ICANN Board's follow-up query regarding ICANN's Bylaws (which have changed since the 2012 round); the WG provided this explanation:

The enforcement of [[Public Interest Commitments|Registry Voluntary Commitments]] was a subject of much discussion at [[ICANN 70]]. The SubPro Working Group's guidance on the subject largely maintains the status quo regarding the use of RVCs by applicants. The WG did recommend expanding the jurisdiction of the [[PICDRP]] to expressly incorporate Registry Voluntary Commitments. On page 49, in response to the ICANN Board's follow-up query regarding ICANN's Bylaws (which have changed since the 2012 round); the WG provided this explanation:

<blockquote>To the extent that some registries will want to make voluntary commitments in response to public comments, Government Early Warnings, GAC Advice, etc., it is understood by the Working Group that having these commitments reflected in Registry Agreements even if they fall outside of ICANN’s core mission is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN’s control is required to pass judgment on ‘content’. In such cases, it is understood that using an independent third party as an arbiter to determine whether there has been a violation of the commitment would be consistent with ICANN’s mission even if ICANN were ultimately required to rely on that third party decision to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>

<blockquote>To the extent that some registries will want to make voluntary commitments in response to public comments, Government Early Warnings, GAC Advice, etc., it is understood by the Working Group that having these commitments reflected in Registry Agreements even if they fall outside of ICANN’s core mission is consistent with the Bylaws where neither ICANN itself nor any third party under ICANN’s control is required to pass judgment on ‘content’. In such cases, it is understood that using an independent third party as an arbiter to determine whether there has been a violation of the commitment would be consistent with ICANN’s mission even if ICANN were ultimately required to rely on that third party decision to enforce a pre-arranged contractual remedy, which could include sanctions and/or termination of the Registry Agreement.<ref name="subpro" /></blockquote>

==References==

==References==

{{reflist}}

{{reflist}}