[council] Update on Closed Generics

Mon Aug 14 17:34:38 UTC 2023

Thanks Kurt.  I also think the leadership draft contains a subtle
underlying policy recommendation in favor of accepting new Closed Generic
applications in the next round in the absence of developed policy on
evaluating those applications.  This is problematic in the face of standing
GAC Consensus Advice not yet rejected by the Board.  I don't think the Sub
Pro WG discussed this particular policy issue presented by the current
scenario.  (Please see my note in response to Greg's email.)

I'm a bit concerned that Council sending the letter to the Board will
result in a request from the Board to Council to  at least develop policy
on that issue alone (accepting closed generic applications), if not a
request to "go back to the drawing Board" to develop overall Closed
Generics policy though an established GNSO policy-making mechanism such as
EPDP.

Perhaps Council should simply advise the Board that (1) Based on public
comment, the Facilitated Dialogue process proved unsuccessful in this
instance and (2) Council does not believe a further policy process would
result in a consensus and therefore, the Board should decide the issues,
including whether or not to accept Closed Generic applications in the next
round.

Not sure that approach would succeed but it would avoid deciding the policy
issue on accepting applications when that topic was not specifically
addressed (in the present scenario) by the Sub Pro WG.

Anne

Anne

Anne Aikman-Scalese
GNSO Councilor
NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
anneicanngnso at gmail.com

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 7:54 PM kurt kjpritz.com <kurt at kjpritz.com> wrote:

> Replying to Paul (Hi Paul):
>
> As pointed out by Anne (and Rubens in a parallel email exchange), the
> question of status quo is not settled. That is the reason the SubPro
> working group specifically asked the Board to settle the question.
>
> The Board essentially created a new, temporary policy when it introduced
> an additional restriction into the criteria for delegating new TLDs. (I say
> temporary because the restriction was time-limited in a way.)
>
> The SubPro final report does not recommend an extension of that
> restriction by way of a “pause,” the report specifically recommends
> something else. By recommending a pause, the SO/AC leadership would be
> amending the final report recommendation.
>
> I wish I could be clearer. That somehow eludes me at the moment.
>
> Kurt
>
>
>
> On 11 Aug 2023, at 3:37 am, Anne ICANN <anneicanngnso at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Kurt and Paul,
>
> As I see it, the issue has come back to what constitutes the "status
> quo".  This issue was hotly debated in the Sub Pro Working Group.  Some
> maintained that there was no prohibition on the applications for Closed
> Generics because none was contained in the 2012 AGB. Others maintained that
> due to the GAC Advice and Board direction to "pause" pending policy
> development, the "status quo" is actually a "pause" which would be
> continued at the start of the next round.  The risk I see for the ICANN
> Board in the latter situation is that those existing applications for
> Closed Generics (which are on hold) as well as any future applications to
> be taken in the next round (not prohibited by this recommendation) would
> build a case for Request for Reconsideration if the Board does not allow
> those applications to move forward.  For example, the grounds might be
> Applicant Freedom of Expression under the Human Rights Core Value and the
> underlying principle of Applicant Freedom of Expression that has been
> affirmed by subsequent PDP work and is now being confirmed in the Sub Pro
> IRT process.
>
> Another factor is that the Board has consistently declined to make
> policy.  And I'm not certain that the GNSO Council actually has the
> authority to direct the Board to make a Closed Generic policy.  Are you
> gentlemen certain that this is kosher?
>
> Certainly I agree this issue should not hold up the next round but of
> course there is a year to go.  If the Board is willing to take a decision
> on this, that is one scenario.   If the Board is not willing to take a
> decision on this and/or is concerned about the risk of expensive litigation
> over a possible ban, then that is another scenario.  Has anyone spoken with
> our Sub Pro Board reps about this approach?  (They are copied here.)
>
> Thank you,
> Anne
>
> Anne Aikman-Scalese
> GNSO Councilor
> NomCom Non-Voting 2022-2024
> anneicanngnso at gmail.com
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:15 AM Paul McGrady via council <
> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kurt,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for this.  I’m not sure I am understanding your concern.  One of
>> the basic tenants that everyone in the SubPro PDP agreed to was that,
>> absent any changes captured in the Recommendations, that the status quo
>> would prevail.  All the letter does is ask for that.  I feel better about
>> sticking with the WG’s inability to change the status quo than I do asking
>> the Board to write a policy when the community couldn’t agree to anything,
>> even after two valiant efforts.  We tried in the WG, we couldn’t get there,
>> the status quo should prevail.  We tried again at the request of the Board
>> at the SO/AC level, we couldn’t get there, the status quo should prevail.
>> The letter leaves open the possibility of future community work on this but
>> notes there is no bandwidth or appetite to do so and we don’t want the next
>> round held up.  Help me understand you concern about asking the Board to
>> maintain the status quo until/if the community comes up with a policy on
>> these.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* council <council-bounces at gnso.icann.org> *On Behalf Of *kurt
>> kjpritz.com via council
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 10, 2023 3:45 AM
>> *To:* John McElwaine <john.mcelwaine at nelsonmullins.com>
>> *Cc:* GNSO Council <council at gnso.icann.org>
>> *Subject:* Re: [council] Update on Closed Generics
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi John:
>>
>> Thanks for taking time to make this detailed report, and also thanks to
>> the well-intentioned people that participated in the effort, in particular,
>> our GNSO representatives. I am not surprised by the outcome.
>>
>> I am surprised by the recommendation to pause any release of
>> closed generics to a future round. Such an action would turn the
>> consensus-based policy development process on its head.
>>
>> 1. I don’t understand how the SO/AC leaders have the authority to revise
>> the PDP final report recommendation.
>>
>> The PDP final report (approved by each of the Councillors) stated that
>> the closed generic decision should be left up to the ICANN Board. The
>> final report did not recommend the conflicting direction that the closed
>> generics ban be continued until a future round.
>>
>> The Board made an attempt to (re)involve the community by inviting the
>> GAC and GNSO to develop a solution. With that effort closed, we
>> should revert back to the final report recommendations. We should not
>> change the consensus position developed. Do we think the PDP team would
>> have approved a recommendation to pause closed generics for an additional
>> round? (No.)
>>
>> We have thoroughly discussed the conditions under which a
>> Council approved final report can be changed (e.g., GGP), and this is not
>> one of them.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2.     Continuing the ban on closed generics effectively abandons
>> the consensus policy model of decision making.
>>
>> The new gTLD policy developments, in 2007-8 and 2016-21 have asked the
>> questions: (1) should there be a round of TLDs and, if yes, (2)
>> what restrictions / conditions should be in place to address SSR, IP,
>> and competition concerns.
>>
>> Restrictions and conditions enjoying consensus support were implemented
>> in the program. (An illustrative example is the RPM IRT,
>> whose recommendations were ratified by the community STI.)
>>
>> During discussions on closed generics, there were people for barring
>> them, allowing them, and allowing them with restrictions. Pausing
>> any introduction of closed generics essentially creates a policy advocated
>> by a minority (and in any case not enjoying consensus support). The final
>> report indicated as much.
>>
>> This result provides an incentive to avoid compromise. Going forward,
>> those wanting to implement an unsupported policy can refuse to compromise
>> through a PDP and subsequent ad-hoc discussions with the hope
>> that leadership will “give up” and implement unsupported restrictions.
>>
>> 3.     The decision to ban closed generics for an additional
>> round contradicts the one step the Board took.
>>
>> The Board direction to the GAC-GNSO team established
>> guardrails, prohibiting a model that would either ban or provide for the
>> unrestricted release of closed generics. We cannot be sure this is where
>> the Board will land absent input from the GAC-GNSO effort, but we should
>> not erase the chance that the Board would develop a balanced decision.
>>
>>
>>
>> Two additional points:
>>
>>
>> 1.     I do not believe that deferring the issue to the Board will
>> delay the next round, despite the recent GAC-GNSO detour. The Board has
>> more than a year to make a call.
>>
>>
>> 2.     I do not believe the Board is exceeding their authority in
>> making the call. The GNSO specifically assigned the task to the Board as
>> part of their policy management responsibility. In any event, the Board
>> established that authority when it paused closed generics in 2012,
>> contradicting the Council-approved policy.
>>
>>
>> If given the opportunity to participate in a discussion on this issue, I
>> would oppose the recommendation that the issue should be paused, and
>> closed generics banned for the reasons stated above. I would support the
>> final report recommendation that the issue be decided by the Board.
>>
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Kurt
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10 Aug 2023, at 7:33 am, John McElwaine via council <
>> council at gnso.icann.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Councilors,
>>
>>
>>
>> As GNSO Council liaison to the ALAC-GAC-GNSO Facilitated Dialogue on
>> Closed Generic gTLDs, I wanted to update you on the latest developments on
>> this project. On 7 July 2023, after discussions amongst themselves that I
>> also participated in, Sebastien (in his capacity as GNSO Chair), Jonathan
>> Zuck (ALAC Chair) and Nico Caballero (GAC Chair) sent the attached letter
>> to the participants in the dialogue. For reasons set out in the letter, and
>> in response to questions that the dialogue participants had referred to
>> them (also noted in the letter), the three Chairs have collectively decided
>> that it will be neither necessary to continue with the dialogue to develop
>> a final framework nor initiate further policy development work on this
>> topic.
>>
>>
>>
>> The dialogue participants have discussed the Chairs’ joint letter and
>> agreed to conclude their work as requested, including producing an outcomes
>> report to ensure that the work to date is thoroughly documented.
>> Participants also agreed to forward the Chairs’ letter to all the
>> commenters that submitted input on the draft framework (viz., Tucows, RySG,
>> BC, ISPCPC, ALAC and GAC), and have invited those commenters that wish to
>> engage with the group to join their next call to clarify any significant
>> concerns they raised in the feedback they provided.
>>
>>
>>
>> The staff team that is supporting the dialogue is currently preparing a
>> draft outcomes report for the group to review. The group intends for the
>> outcomes report to serve as an introduction and summary of their work,
>> including expressly clarifying that the draft framework the group published
>> in June 2023 does not reflect agreed outcomes but, rather, was a product of
>> compromise that was reached in the interests of soliciting community
>> feedback on the various elements and points included in the draft
>> framework. The outcomes report will also include all the community feedback
>> that were submitted in full, links to the group’s community wiki space and
>> other relevant documentation, and the participants’ feedback on the
>> consensus building techniques and approaches that were used for the
>> dialogue.
>>
>>
>>
>> The group hopes to wrap up its work by September, in line with its
>> previous plan to conclude the dialogue and final framework by end-Q3 2023.
>> I understand that Sebastien, Nico and Jonathan will also be sending a
>> separate communication to the ICANN Board that reflects the decision they
>> took and, as stated in the letter, expressing the collective view that:
>>
>>
>>
>> (1) closed generic gTLDs should not be viewed as a dependency for the
>> next round;
>>
>> (2) until there is community-developed policy, the Board should maintain
>> the position from the 2012 round (i.e., any applications seeking to impose
>> exclusive registry access for "generic strings" to a single person or
>> entity and/or that person's or entity's Affiliates (as defined in Section
>> 2.9(c) of the Registry Agreement) should not proceed*;* and
>>
>> (3) should the community decide in the future to resume the policy
>> discussions, this should be based on the good work that has been done to
>> date in the facilitated dialogue.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sebastien and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have on the
>> letter, the Chairs’ decision and the proposed next steps. You may also wish
>> to check in with the representatives that each of your Stakeholder Groups
>> appointed to the dialogue for further information.
>>
>>
>>
>> Finally, I am sure I speak for all of us when I say that we are very
>> grateful to the dialogue participants and the staff support team for all
>> the hard work and consensus building that resulted in a detailed and
>> substantive, if preliminary, draft framework. I also hope that the
>> participants’ feedback on the methods and techniques used in the dialogue,
>> as well as other lessons learned from the experience, will provide the GNSO
>> Council and community with useful information that we can put into practice
>> in future policy discussions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> *Confidentiality Notice*
>> This message is intended exclusively for the individual or entity to
>> which it is addressed. This communication may contain information that is
>> proprietary, privileged, confidential or otherwise legally exempt from
>> disclosure. If you are not the named addressee, you are not authorized to
>> read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this message or any part of it. If
>> you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
>> immediately either by phone (800-237-2000) or reply to this e-mail and
>> delete all copies of this message.
>>
>> <Message from ALAC GAC  GNSO Chairs to Closed Generics Facilitated
>> Dialogue Participants - FINAL - 5 August 2023 (002).pdf>
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 email originated from outside the firm. Please use caution.
>> _______________________________________________
>> council mailing list
>> council at gnso.icann.org
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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: <https://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20230814/29f22559/attachment-0001.html>