<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-US" link="#0563C1" vlink="purple">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Dear Working Group members,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Please see below the notes from WG Session #1 on 09 March at 1715 UTC at the ICANN67 Virtual Meeting.
<b><i>These high-level notes are designed to help WG members navigate through the content of the call and are not a substitute for the recording, transcript, or the chat,</i></b> which will be posted at:
<a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP">
https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-03-09+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Kind regards,<br>
Julie<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Notes and Action Items:</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"> </span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">1. Updates to Statements of Interest: No updates provided.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2. Discussion of Final Report Topics – see the documents at:
<a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing">
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xXu7gPKiblS3Vh4MCuK6NWfeRmMolXf9VF5sO7OG4VE/edit?usp=sharing</a> and attached as a PDF.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Overview:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- All of these sessions are official sessions of the SubPro WG and being conducted in a manner that we normally conduct our meetings.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- May have non-WG participants.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The topics we are addressing are ones the WG have addressed many times already.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Giving preference to WG members, but we’ll end each subject with open comments.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">a. 2.7.3 Closed Generics<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt">a. Recommendations and/or implementation guidelines</span></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">“Although the Working Group has had numerous discussions about this topic, and received extensive comments from the community, received a number of comments on this, the Working Group was not able to agree
as to how to treat these applications in subsequent rounds.” <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Suggested edit: “Edit: “and received extensive comments from the community, received a number of comments on this,” -- second clause is duplicative, suggestion is to delete “received a number of comments
on this”.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Discussion</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Asked for proposals to be submitted. Received a couple of proposals.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- I disagree with this approach (and am on record previously with it) I think knowing what the status quo is will help people realized the downside of not trying to reach consensus. And we need to be consistent
because it’s very easy to say the SQ is the AGB but in other places, leadership says SQ is "implementation."<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><QUESTION> Since there is no clear agreement on how to treat closed generics moving forward, is it the case that until a GNSO PDP ultimately (if ever) makes a specific recommendation to change their treatment,
they will continue to effectively be prohibited based on the referenced Board resolution? </QUESTION><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Question: Where is the definition of closed generics so that people know what we are talking about? Answer: It is in the GAC Beijing Communique. They listed a number of strings and whether it is proposed
to be open or closed. No extensive review of any of those applications. Some that they indicated were closed generics were not. The definition of closed generics is in Specification 11 of the Registry Agreement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- The Board specifically asked the WG to look at the issue of closed generics.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- When we talk about serving a public interest goal, what are we talking about? If we look at it from the public interest of being in receipt of the content is that who are talking about?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Difficult to define and depends on who is defining it. The idea is that the GAC is supposed to define it. A bigger question is what do we want the DNS to be?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We have tried to define or discussed the public interest for a long time. We have generally come to the conclusion is that we will never have a definition, but just a set of examples of how we would recognize
the public interest, or if we can’t agree on that methodology then we can’t come to consensus.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Maybe we should try to define what we want to avoid.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Seem to be stuck on the idea that registrants want to register every gTLD. That just doesn’t seem supported by reality. It would be good if we could talk about what we want to avoid.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We should be looking at what is the adequate governance model for accountability for the affected community.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Public authorities or non-profit organizations could make better use of a closed generic than a commercial entity could. Could be decided whether the intended use is commercial or non-commercial.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p><span style="text-decoration:none"> </span></o:p></span></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">Proposed questions from Anne Aikman-Scalese that could be used in an evaluation process by a panel or an objection process</span></u><span style="font-size:12.0pt">:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">1. Does the proposed closed registry serve a public good?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">2. Is the proposed mission and purpose of the registry innovative in nature?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">3. What is the likely effect on competition of awarding the proposed closed registry for the same or similar goods and/or services? Is it minimal or is it vast?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">4. Is there more than one proposed closed registry application for the same string and if so, how can these be evaluated for preference, e.g. scoring system.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">5. Should there be restrictions on resale of the proposed Closed Registry? <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">6. What specific Public Interest Commitments are proposed by the registry and how can these be effectively monitored and enforced? Would additional fees be due from such a registry in order to pay for enforcement
of these PICs, e.g by ICANN Compliance staff set up for this purpose?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Important to try to figure out a framework to make this work.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Example of competitive behavior: mergers are looked at in advance by the US government, but the starting point is not that all mergers are bad. The presupposition isn’t that you can’t do it.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Defining questions may help us to define what needs to be avoided.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- To the example of mergers, there isn’t a supposition that they are bad, just that there might need to be guardrails. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Can we identify the harms and problem solve for them? What do we think is anti-competitive or undue discrimination?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- As an example, what if Daimler-Chrysler wants to operate .sedan? What if GM doesn’t want .sedan? We are assuming that everyone else wants to have their name in .sedan.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Lots of industries have generic terms that represent them and that they want to be closed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- More concerned with the ability to take recourse action if anything went wrong, if we are able to get to some sort of compromise -- enforcement would be an element.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- If we are talking about anti-competitiveness you can put in specific guardrails -- that is a problem we can solve.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- We are talking about genus versus species.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:12.0pt">-- Everyone is worried about consumer choice, but some TLDs would like to focus on consumer trust and innovation.
</span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>