[Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics

[Greg Shatan]

In a closed generic the operator is the only registrant.  (“Operator” may
include subsidiaries and affiliates.)

Greg

On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 11:53 AM Pruis, Elaine via Gnso-newgtld-wg <
gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org> wrote:

> What’s the difference between a “restricted TLD” and a “closed generic” if
> the operator writes the rules to only allow registrants that fit their
> desired profile?
> What am I missing?
>
> Elaine
>
>
>
> *From: *Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of
> Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Date: *Wednesday, February 26, 2020 at 6:02 PM
> *To: *Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>
> *Cc: *"gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org" <gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org>
> *Subject: *[EXTERNAL] Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
>
>
>
> I think closed generics should be allowed, just as they were in the 2012
> round... until the Board's knee-jerk reaction to unsubstantiated GAC
> pressure.
>
>
>
> I disagree with Alan that means "no closed generics" is the current
> policy.  The AGB clearly allowed them, as they were not prohibited or
> restricted in any way.
>
>
>
> I agree with Becky that any "public interest" criteria had better be
> crystal clear to give the Board guidance.  But I don't think the Board
> should be deciding those things, at all.  The entire program was designed
> for the Board NOT to make such decisions.  Regardless of the criteria, some
> disappointed applicants certainly will challenge ICANN's decisions, as is
> their right under the Byalws.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> RODENBAUGH LAW
>
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
>
> http://rodenbaugh.law
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:34 AM Becky Burr <becky.burr at board.icann.org>
> wrote:
>
> I'm taking no position whatsoever on the notion of public interest closed
> generics and/or whether an adverse decision should be appealable.  That
> said, if you do provide for a public interest exception to the no closed
> generics rule, please make the criteria crystal clear.  Otherwise you
> should expect disappointed applicants to file IRPs on the basis of
> disparate treatment.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 1:27 PM Alexander Schubert
> <alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:
>
> Jeff,
>
>
>
> I agree. The board decision should be appealable – but if the board denies
> the “public interest” claim: I suggest that doesn’t have to lead to a
> denial of the entire application. The applicant could have an alternative
> “open gTLD” application portion as well – and upon board denial of the
> public interest claim the applicant could decide whether they want to
> withdraw; or fall back to the open registration version they submitted. Or
> appeal the board decision.
>
> Also I do not see the benefit of a strict “non-profit” restriction. All my
> 6 next round projects are non-profit, so I obviously value the choice of
> non-profit applicants a lot. But I could imagine “public interest” in an
> exclusive access model even when the registry is a for profit entity. In
> most of those cases that for profit entity would likely establish a
> trademark around the term. Like: “.twitter” – where TWITTER, Inc. would
> allow Twitter users to have their own twitter-handle matching domain (e.g.
> www.dotairport.twitter instead of the longish www.twitter.com/dotairport
> - why supporting the .com gTLD brand if you have your own global brand with
> dozens of millions of users?). In that case (in my mind) .twitter could
>  not be a Spec 13 registration – because the heavy restrictions in Spec 13
> would in my perspective not allow all Twitter handles to be registered as
> .twitter domains to be used by Twitter, Inc. clients (brand specialists:
> what’s your opinion on this? Do I see this too narrow?).
>
> Actually this would apply to all social media that are based on generic
> terms:
>
> ·        .twitter
>
> ·        .facebook
>
> ·        .snap
>
> ·        .telegram
>
>
>
> Just as examples.
>
>
>
> Is an exclusive access “.twitter” of “public interest”? Given that the
> brand is so impacting and all domains of an open gTLD .twitter would be
> likely subject to confusion: seems to make a lot of sense to provide
> TWITTER, Inc. with exclusive access. We run into a clear “judgement call”
> here. Is “.match” (matches to make fire, matching items, etc.) better off
> as reserved for match.com (single platform) – or not? Do we require the
> ICANN board to make these calls? What is the rationale of their decision?
> Gut-feeling?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Jeff Neuman
> *Sent:* Mittwoch, 26. Februar 2020 12:40
> *To:* Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca>; Mike Rodenbaugh <
> mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
>
>
>
> Alan,
>
>
>
> Can you explain why being able to assert an accountability mechanism would
> destroy the notion of the public interest closed TLD.
>
>
> Remember, GAC Advice was fairly clear on this.  It didn’t say that there
> should never be closed generic TLDs.  It said “For strings representing
> generic terms, exclusive registry access should serve a public interest
> goal."
>
>
>
> Your initial proposal (minus the no appeals part) to have any public
> interest TLD closed generic exception is rather narrow to begin with.  Must
> be a non-profit entity, must have a vote by Board Supermajority, etc.
> Justine has recommended some additional elements on top of that with strong
> contractual compliance provisions…..
>
>
>
> I am not saying I support or don’t support the proposal, but I am not sure
> why taking away a right to use an accountability mechanism would destroy
> the entire proposal?
>
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> *Jeff Neuman*
>
> Senior Vice President
>
> *Com Laude | Valideus*
>
> D: +1.703.635.7514
>
> E: *jeff.neuman at comlaude.com <jeff.neuman at comlaude.com>*
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg <gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> *On Behalf Of
> *Alan Greenberg
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 25, 2020 5:49 PM
> *To:* Mike Rodenbaugh <mike at rodenbaugh.com>
> *Cc:* gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
>
>
>
> Fine with me. But in my opinion, that means the exception for public
> interest TLDs will not fly and we revert to the 2012 implementation of no
> closed generics.
>
> Alan
>
> At 25/02/2020 04:32 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
>
> i do not believe the Board should be allowed to make any decisions that
> are not "appealable" per the IRP.  If Claimant has proper standing and a
> dispute within the scope of the Bylaws definition of Dispute, then they
> have a valid IRP claim.  This is a very slippery slope to start to carve
> out Board decisions that have no chance of appeal, and why on Earth would
> we want to do that anyway?
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> RODENBAUGH LAW
> tel/fax:  +1.415.738.8087
> http://rodenbaugh.law
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 7:08 PM Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca
> > wrote:
>
> I had this in my original proposal but based on individual discussions I
> have had I know that some people missed it.
>
> To have the Board make a decision that is not in any way appealable will
> require a Bylaw change, but it is a change for which there is another
> precedent that will go before the Board before out report reaches them. The
> Auction Proceeds CCWG also will require a similar Bylaw amendment.
>
> Alan
>
> At 24/02/2020 09:46 PM, Phil Buckingham wrote:
>
> Hi Justine , Alan , Anne,
>
> Justine , that̢۪s  a great suggestion. The contrntractual compliance &
> monitoring needs to be much more rigorous in the next round .
>
> I very much support Alan̢۪s suggestion of going aheadead with new (
> 2020) policy recommendations for a special use case  , New TLD application
> category . Let̢۪s call it a Public Ic Interest TLD .
>
> I am working on a proposal ( for Friday̢۪ deadline) .) . It will
> incorporate the evaluation and implementation issues too.
>
> Ultimately my thoughts are we need to make policy that is so demanding ,
> incorporating Alexander’s suggestion of a â₢€œ health warning “
> that applications will not pt pass the evaluation.  ICANN will need to
> employ & train “ evaluation  experts. There will be no come backs , no
> second evaluation , no appeals . Once passed the evaluation The Board would
> need to approve ( or reject) the application by Special resolution.
>
> Your thoughts ?
>
> Phil
>
> Phil Buckingham
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 25 Feb 2020, at 01:30, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com > wrote:
>
> Perhaps this is something we could pick up under the Contractual
> Compliance topic.
>
> Justine
>
> -----
>
> On Fri, 21 Feb 2020 at 01:39, Aikman-Scalese, Anne <AAikman at lrrc.com>
> wrote:
>
> Thank you Justine.  This is very constructive.  We would then need to
> think about enforcement mechanisms.  Private dispute resolution process?
> Filing a complaint with ICANN?  Positive obligation by ICANN Compliance to
> monitor?  Accomplish the goals below via PICs and eligibility
> requirements?  Would appreciate your further thoughts.
>
> Just continuing the discussion so we can help create a complete proposal
> as this moves forward to formulate a WG recommendation.
>
> Anne
>
>
>
> From: Gnso-newgtld-wg < gnso-newgtld-wg-bounces at icann.org> On Behalf Of
> Justine Chew
>
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:28 AM
>
> To: gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>
> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg] Proposal re Closed Generics
>
>
>
> [EXTERNAL]
> ------------------------------
>
> While I remain undecided on supporting either a full ban on closed
> generics or (what I call) a qualified ban per the special case conditions
> proposed by Alan, I strongly suggest that any consideration of Alan's
> proposal should also include the following:
>
> Insertion as material in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is
> a generic word, such terms and conditions:
>
> (1)  to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the
> closed generic TLD as being in the public interest;
>
> (2)  which prohibit any action considered as anti-competitive (eg.
> discriminatory registration policies in favour of certain parties or
> against competitors in the applicable industry);
>
> (3)  which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the
> closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to at all times and by any
> party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA; and
>
> (4)  to stipulate that launching for SLD registration for the closed
> generic TLD by the (first) RO must take place within 2 years of signing the
> RA.
>
> the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination
> of the RA.
>
> Justine
>
> -----
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca >
> wrote:
>
> While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my
>
> proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small
>
> number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs
>
> that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be
>
> true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the
>
> applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a
>
> large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.
>
> The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only.
>
> This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.
>
> Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being
>
> scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro
> call.
>
> To make my position clear, other than this special case I am
>
> proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.
>
> Alan
>
> At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>
> >The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.
>
> >
>
> >One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to
>
> >closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that
>
> >a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example
>
> >of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.
>
> >
>
> >I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the
>
> >decision on whether a particular application would move forward or
>
> >not would rest with the ICANN Board.
>
> >
>
> >The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at
>
> >least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD
>
> >would be in the public interest.
>
> >
>
> >The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN
>
> >Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would
>
> >require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision
>
> >from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an
>
> >amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there
>
> >is a current precedent.
>
> >
>
> >If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near
>
> >unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this
>
> >matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered
>
> >Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw
>
> >change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.
>
> >
>
> >This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in
>
> >the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.
>
> >
>
> >Alan
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
> ------------------------------
>
> This message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the
> individual or entity to which they are addressed. If the reader of this
> message or an attachment is not the intended recipient or the employee or
> agent responsible for delivering the message or attachment to the intended
> recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or
> copying of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you
> have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by
> replying to the sender. The information transmitted in this message and any
> attachments may be privileged, is intended only for the personal and
> confidential use of the intended recipients, and is covered by the
> Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. §2510-2521.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
>
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
>
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You
> can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential to the
> intended recipient. They may not be disclosed, used by or copied in any way
> by anyone other than the intended recipient. If you have received this
> message in error, please return it to the sender (deleting the body of the
> email and attachments in your reply) and immediately and permanently delete
> it. Please note that the Com Laude Group does not accept any responsibility
> for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan or otherwise check this
> email and any attachments. The Com Laude Group does not accept liability
> for statements which are clearly the sender's own and not made on behalf of
> the group or one of its member entities. The Com Laude Group includes
> Nom-IQ Limited t/a Com Laude, a company registered in England and Wales
> with company number 5047655 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell
> Street, London, WC1A 2HN England
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28-30+Little+Russell+Street,+London,%0D%0A+WC1A+2HN+England?entry=gmail&source=g>;
> Valideus Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company
> number 06181291 and registered office at 28-30 Little Russell Street,
> London, WC1A 2HN England
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/28-30+Little+Russell+Street,+London,+WC1A+2HN+England?entry=gmail&source=g>;
> Demys Limited, a company registered in Scotland with company number
> SC197176, having its registered office at 33 Melville Street, Edinburgh,
> Lothian, EH3 7JF Scotland
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/33+Melville+Street,+Edinburgh,+Lothian,+EH3+7JF+Scotland?entry=gmail&source=g>;
> Consonum, Inc. dba Com Laude USA and Valideus USA, headquartered at 1751
> Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600, McLean, VA 22102, USA
> <https://www.google.com/maps/search/1751+Pinnacle+Drive,+Suite+600,+McLean,+VA+22102,+USA?entry=gmail&source=g>;
> Com Laude (Japan) Corporation, a company registered in Japan having its
> registered office at Suite 319,1-3-21 Shinkawa, Chuo-ku, Tokyo, 104-0033,
> Japan. For further information see www.comlaude.com <https://comlaude.com>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg
> _______________________________________________
> By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your
> personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance
> with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and
> the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can
> visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or
> configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or
> disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg/attachments/20200227/f2b75746/attachment-0001.html>