<div dir="ltr">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:<br><br>Insertion as <u style="">material</u> in the relevant RA for a closed generic TLD that is a generic word, <u style="">such terms and conditions</u>:<br><br>(1) to be derived from the applicant's submission on the use of the closed generic TLD as being in the public interest;<br>(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);<br>(3) which govern any dealings on the disposal and/or future use of the closed TLDs - that (1) and (2) must be adhered to <u>at all times and by any party which operates or acquires the rights under the RA</u>; and<br>(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.<br clear="all"><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><br>the breach of one or more of which will constitute cause for termination of the RA.<br><br>Justine<br>-----</div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 20 Feb 2020 at 13:48, Alan Greenberg <<a href="mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca">alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">While talking to a colleague today, I realized a problem with my <br>
proposal. I was thinking that there would (or could ) only be a small <br>
number of applications that could be deemed to be for closed TLDs <br>
that are generic words and in the public interest. That may indeed be <br>
true. However, there may well be MANY such applications twhere the <br>
applicant beleives their use will be in the public interest, and a <br>
large load of such cases going to the Board will not work.<br>
<br>
The change is to restrict applicants to not-for-profit entities only. <br>
This is in keeping with the nature of the one example that has been raised.<br>
<br>
Note that due to the unfortunate timing of the SubPro meeting being <br>
scheduled in conflict with the EPDP, I will likely not be on the SubPro call.<br>
<br>
To make my position clear, other than this special case I am <br>
proposing, I would NOT support the delegation of closed generics.<br>
<br>
Alan<br>
<br>
<br>
At 18/02/2020 07:43 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:<br>
>The SubPro meeting today began discussing Closed Generics.<br>
><br>
>One of my interventions was that although I was strongly opposed to <br>
>closed generics in the general case, I did support the concept that <br>
>a closed generic could be in the public interest, with the example <br>
>of .disaster operating by the International Red Cross as the example.<br>
><br>
>I proposed that we allow closed generic applications, but the <br>
>decision on whether a particular application would move forward or <br>
>not would rest with the ICANN Board.<br>
><br>
>The Board would have to agree, by an overwhelming majority (say at <br>
>least 90% of sitting, non-conflicted, Board members) that the TLD <br>
>would be in the public interest.<br>
><br>
>The decision would be final and not appealable through the ICANN <br>
>Reconsideration or IRP processes. This latter condition would <br>
>require an amendment to the ICANN Bylaws to exempt such decision <br>
>from the accountability measures, but this is identical to an <br>
>amendment being recommended by the CCWG-Auction Proceeds, so there <br>
>is a current precedent.<br>
><br>
>If, despite the fact that the decision would have to be near <br>
>unanimous, there is still distrust of the ICANN Board in this <br>
>matter, the approval of such TLDs could be subject to the Empowered <br>
>Community Approval or Rejection Actions (also requiring a Bylaw <br>
>change). However, in my mind, such caution would be overkill.<br>
><br>
>This proposal would allow a closed generic when it is clearly (in <br>
>the view of the Board) in the Public Interest.<br>
><br>
>Alan<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Gnso-newgtld-wg mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org" target="_blank">Gnso-newgtld-wg@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy</a>) and the website Terms of Service (<a href="https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos</a>). 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.<br>
</blockquote></div>