Believe it or not, the criteria for an entity to trust someone enough to grant them the privilege of accrediting them as a domain registrar can be somewhat different from the criteria the state uses to decide whether it is cruel and unusual not to release them from prison. The fact some people can be rehabilitated, doesn't mean that they always are, or that keeping people in jail indefinitely because they haven't said sorry is a proportional punishment/deterrent. The social consensus you're arguing against is that the range of attitudes towards people convicted of crimes shouldn't be as simple as a boolean updating from INCARCERATE to MAXIMUM TRUST on the date they say sorry.

Criteria used by the state are examined by an impartial judge, publically, and must be proven beyong reasonable doubt.

Criteria used by ICANN are unaccountable, capricious and prone to abuse of power

The argument is about due process.

The problem is not their opinion, its their inordinate extrajudicial power to extend punishment indefinitely upon people which have already paid their debt to society, at the behest of corporations.

Sure, if you consider "concluding someone convicted by due process of offence against IP who continues to ridicule the concept of IP unsuitable for accreditation to administer IP" to be 'indefinite punishment' which seems more than a little hyperbolic.

For related reasons, if you're convicted of creating malware and continue to loudly and publicly defend the principle of creating malware after your release, it's not cruel and unusual punishment if tech companies won't give partner certifications to your software consultancy