<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">I hereby submit my response to the Consensus Call. I am submitting this in my personal capacity, and not on behalf of my employer or any ICANN structure.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif">Except as noted below, my response is that I support or do not object to the Recommendations in the Final Report.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:verdana,sans-serif"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style=""><p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;color:rgb(80,0,80)"><br></p><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0in;color:rgb(80,0,80);margin-top:0in"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:15px;color:black"><b>Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments;</b><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ul><div style=""><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div style=""><font color="#000000">I strongly support PICs and RVCs. However, it should be clear that PICS/RVCs, by definition, DO NOT and CANNOT violate Section 1.1(c) of the ICANN ByLaws, which reads:</font></div></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style=""><div style=""><font color="#000000"><br></font></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style=""><div style="">ICANN shall not regulate (i.e., impose rules and restrictions on) services that use the Internet's unique identifiers or the content that such services carry or provide, outside the express scope of Section 1.1(a). For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN does not hold any governmentally authorized regulatory authority.</div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style=""><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="">Simply put, a PIC/RVC is a mutually agreed term in a contract and thus is not the <u>imposition</u> of a rule or restriction by ICANN. This was a heavily discussed provision during the IANA transition and I participated directly in those discussions.</div><div class="gmail_default" style=""><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="">If ICANN believes that ICANN cannot agree to a PIC/RVC because it violates the Bylaws, ICANN should not agree to these PICS//RVCs in the first place. Once a PIC/RVC is agreed to and in place, registries need to comply and ICANN needs to enforce it as it would with any other contract term..</div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_default" style=""> </div></blockquote></blockquote><div class="gmail_default" style=""><div style=""><br></div><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0in;color:rgb(80,0,80);margin-top:0in"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:15px;color:black"><b>Topic 23: Closed Generics;</b><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ul><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b>I agree with Justine Chew's statement (on behalf of ALAC) and with Anne Aikman Scalese's statement on this Recommendation, which reads as follows:</b></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"> I agree that the WG members did not reach Consensus on this topic. I disagree with WG members who maintain that the “status quo” is no prohibition on Closed Generics. After the 2012 implementation, applicants for Closed Generics were permitted to convert to open registries or to withdraw applications with refunds pursuant to Board Resolution. I support the proposal made by Greg Shatan in the December 10, 2020 WG call (at 1 hour 7 minutes into the call) to allow applications for Closed Generics but to “suspend” such applications subject to further policy work in the appropriate forum, e.g. EPDP. In this regard, it would be helpful for the ICANN Board to specify whether it intends to accept standing GAC Advice to the effect that a “Closed Generic” should serve a public interest goal. Such guidance would assist the GNSO Council in constructing a Charter for an EPDP. Here it is important to note that a finding that a particular Closed TLD “serves a public interest goal” does not need to be equal to a finding that a particular Closed TLD is “in the Global Public Interest”. The two standards are distinguishable and elements to establish the status of serving a public interest goal are ascertainable. Specific questions for evaluation of this status are suggested beginning on page 104 of the December 22 version of the Final Report.<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:rgb(31,73,125)">It should also be noted that if this Closed Generic topic is not resolved by adoption of policy prior to the opening of the next application window, it is certain there will be applications for Closed Generics by applicants who will be relying on the new policy contained in Implementation Guidance 3.4 that prohibits subsequent applications for the same string if any prior application for that string remains unresolved. This means that a future application for a Closed Generic could effectively block a subsequent round application for an Open Generic TLD for the same string. Such a result would violate the Principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression which has been affirmed by the Working Group as discussed in Topic 10.</span></p></div><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0in;color:rgb(80,0,80);margin-top:0in"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:15px;color:black"><b>Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE;</b><span style="font-size:11pt"><u></u><u></u></span></li></ul><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b>I support this with some reservations. On the one hand, I have some concerns about gaming and on the other hand, I have some concerns about how difficult it was for actual bona fide communities to satisfy these requirements.</b></font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><ul type="disc" style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;margin-bottom:0in;color:rgb(80,0,80);margin-top:0in"><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:15px;color:black"><b>Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets;</b></li></ul><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><font color="#000000">I do not support Recommendation 35.4.</font></div><div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000000">Thanks to all. Amazing work!</font></div><div><font color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><font color="#000000">Greg Shatan</font></div><div><font color="#000000"><b><br></b></font></div><div><br></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 11:29 AM Emily Barabas <<a href="mailto:emily.barabas@icann.org">emily.barabas@icann.org</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">
<div lang="en-BE" style="overflow-wrap: break-word;">
<div class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Dear WG members,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">On behalf of the WG Co-Chairs, and as discussed during the WG meeting on Thursday, 17 December, this email is to notify you of the<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><b>opening of the online<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><u>Consensus
Call</u><span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span>on the </b></span><b><span lang="EN-US">WG
</span><span style="color:black">Outputs </span></b><span style="color:black">(i.e., Affirmation, Affirmation with Modification, Recommendation, Implementation Guidance, and No Agreement) of the New gTLD Subsequent Procedures GNSO Policy Development Process
(PDP). Pursuant to the content freeze on 18 December, please see the attached PDF of the Outputs and contextual language,<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span>which has received a handful of non-substantive updates</span><span lang="EN-US"> (for a redline
version that shows the minor edits made since 18 December, please see the <a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/h.+Final+Report+Drafting" target="_blank">
wiki</a>)</span><span style="color:black">.<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span>WG members who wish to familiarize themselves with the steps involved and the various levels of consensus applicable to GNSO PDP recommendations can refer to the recording
of the<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span></span><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192)"><a href="https://community.icann.org/display/NGSPP/2020-12-17+New+gTLD+Subsequent+Procedures+PDP" target="_blank"><span style="color:rgb(0,112,192)">17 December meeting</span></a></span><span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><span style="color:black">where
the Consensus Call process was described.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">This Consensus Call opens<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><b><u>today, Tuesday, 22 December 2020</u></b></span><b><u><span lang="EN-US"> and closes</span><span style="color:black"> on Friday, 08 January 2021</span></u></b><b><u><span lang="EN-US">
at 23:59 UTC</span></u></b><span style="color:black">. Per the<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-24oct19-en.pdf__;!!PtGJab4!rNJ7mR-y3NiOaoAVdoJAaixwM1dqZ9IzY_6ZGh-d2rURZLU7eQqaDXkxDxY267kIUfu4bau_tQ$" target="_blank">GNSO
Working Group Guidelines [gnso.icann.org]</a>,<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><b>WG members are requested to indicate<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><u>via<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span>reply to this<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span>list</u><span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span>whether
they support, or do not support, the Outputs.</b> If a WG member does not respond this will be
</span><span style="color:black">taken as suppor</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">t.</span><s><span lang="EN-US"><u></u><u></u></span></s></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">The Outputs are largely being presented in a single package and should be considered as an integrated set of Outputs, which are the result of many years of WG discussions and input received</span><span style="color:black">. This includes
not only the work of the WG, but also the comments we received to Constituency Comments 1 & 2, the work of Work Tracks 1-5, comments to the Initial Report and the two Supplemental Initial Reports, and the comments to the Draft Final Report.
</span><span style="color:black">Therefore, there will likely be Outputs that you believe are imperfect, so the Co-Chairs encourage you to consider the Outputs in the aggregate.<span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"> </span><b>Even if given that context, you still
believe there are Outputs that you do NOT support, please specifically identify the
</b></span><b><u><span style="color:black">Specific Recommendations and/or Implementation Guidance within the
</span><span style="color:black">Outputs</span></u><span style="color:black"> that you do cannot support and why.</span></b><span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space"><span style="color:black"> </span></span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">For the purposes of this Consensus Call, the Outputs are being organized accordingly:<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<ul style="margin-top:0cm;font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px" type="disc">
<li class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt">Topic 9: Registry Voluntary Commitments / Public Interest Commitments;</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt">Topic 23: Closed </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:12pt">G</span></b><b><span style="font-size:12pt">enerics;</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt">Topic 34: Community Applications/CPE;</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt">Topic 35: Auctions: Mechanisms of Last Resort / Private Resolution of Contention Sets; and</span></b><u></u><u></u></li><li class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965MsoListParagraph" style="color:black;margin-top:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm">
<b><span style="font-size:12pt">All other Outputs in the report.</span></b> <u></u>
<u></u></li></ul>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">As noted on the 17 December 2020 </span>
<span lang="EN-US">WG </span><span style="color:black">call, the Consensus Call is being issues to Individual Working Group members (and not to the Constituencies, Stakeholder Groups, Supporting Organizations, and/or the Advisory Committees in which such individuals
participate). Therefore, </span><span style="color:black">WG members will be assumed to be responding to the consensus call on their own behalf unless they
</span><u><span style="color:black">explicitly state in their response</span></u><span style="color:black">
</span><span style="color:black">that they are responding on behalf of their group/organization. Following the close of the Consensus Call, the WG Co-Chairs will meet on Monday, 11 January 2021 to review the responses from the WG members and determine the Consensus
Designations for the Outputs. The WG Co-Chairs will post the results of their determination to the WG email distribution list</span>
<span style="color:black">on <b>January 11, 2021</b><span class="gmail-m_1741037596797289965apple-converted-space">. </span></span><s><u></u><u></u></s></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">On 12 January 2021 at </span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">20:00</span><span style="color:black"> UTC, the Working Group will have its next and hopefully final call to discuss any questions or comments
to the Consensus Designations. Calendar invites have been sent out to Working Group members. Although the meeting is scheduled for
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">120</span><span style="color:black"> minutes, WG leadership will stay on the call until all questions have been addressed. Working Group members will then have until 13 January 2021 at
</span><span lang="EN-US" style="color:black">23:59</span><span style="color:black"> UTC to object to the Consensus Call designations. The final Consensus Call designations shall then be included in the Final Report.
</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:black">Finally, to the extent they are needed, WG members may begin working on minority statements now and through the Consensus Call period, with the ultimate due date of<b> 18 January 2021</b>.</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span style="color:black">Kind regards,</span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="font-variant-caps:normal;text-align:start;word-spacing:0px">
<span lang="EN-US">Steve, Julie and Emily on behalf of the SubPro Leadership Team<u></u><u></u></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt"> </span><u></u><u></u></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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.</blockquote></div>