Enlighten us, then. By context it's appears to be some agency of beurocratic busybodies operating well beyond their jurisdiction. By what authority is an American media company beholden to the Australian government?
As I stated in my previous post, you - along with the Dear Leader and everyone following his lead - seem to have completely misinterpreted what this email is about.
A Royal Commission is set up as an independent body under the direct authority of the Governor-General to examine a particular issue or problem, which cannot be controlled by the Government. While these Commissions are sometimes plainly set up with political motivations through their extremely narrow guidelines, those rarely turn up anything worth noting. The ones that are more effective - and which governments often only establish through gritted teeth - are the ones who have wider terms of reference, like this one. The Government did not want to set this one up, but was basically forced to under public pressure.
The recommendations of a Royal Commission are taken seriously, despite being non-binding, and tend to have a serious effect on both the functions of government and public perception of an issue. Governments don't like them when they have freedom because they will regularly make recommendations that make the Government look bad, and there's nothing they can do about it other than try to ignore it - which can go down like a lead balloon at the next election - or accept the recommendations that make them look bad.
Every Royal Commission has a period for submissions, which can be made by anyone. This particular Royal Commission had around 18,000 submissions, and some of those who make submissions have also been asked to appear at hearings. One of these submissions was from the eSafety Commissioner who, I would like to remind people, IS AN AMERICAN. As the hearings are now coming up, the Royal Commission has noted that some of the documents submitted that will be raised during the next set of hearings relate to the Kiwi Farms.
The solicitor operating on behalf of the Royal Commission has emailed Null to give him the opportunity to object to the disclosure and publication of those documents. That's all this email is. There is no attempt to make anyone "beholden" to anything. Null can either object or not object to the document that refers to him and his website being made publicly available through the Royal Commission.
In essence, Null has completely misread the email and thought that this was an attempt by the Australian Government to reassert the eSafety Commissioner's silly attempt to police Lolcow LLC, when actually is was just asking whether he wanted to object to that email from the eSafety Commissioner being made public. And then he's complained about the thing he's misunderstood on his website, in the Community Highlights no less, and as a result scores of people are left complaining about something that isn't happening.
